Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

State Pension

Mr. Keith Simpson: What plans she has to link state pensions to whichever of prices or earnings is rising faster. [23052]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): The future uprating of the basic pension is being considered by the pensions review. In the meantime, we have met our manifesto commitment to uprate it at least in line with prices.

Mr. Simpson: Many of my hon. Friends will recall that during the general election campaign, we often sat with Labour candidates who made all kinds of promises on pensions. Does not the Minister feel humbled in the face of the fact that the Government have been unable to live

up to the promises made on many platforms? Once again, pensioners and future pensioners realise that their pensions are not safe with a Labour Government.

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I am immensely proud of the Government's unprecedented action to deliver £200 million of winter fuel payments to all pensioner households.

Mr. Hutton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government need to prioritise the case of the 1 million pensioners who are entitled to receive income support but who, for one reason or another, do not claim? What measures will the Government take to provide additional assistance to that vulnerable and important group?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Government have made it clear that the poorest pensioners, including those who do not receive the income support to which they are entitled, will be our priority. That is why we have already initiated research into why pensioners do not claim that support. From April, we shall initiate a series of pilots to determine the best ways in which to get help to those pensioners.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is the Minister aware that there is unprecedented anxiety among millions of old-age pensioners and those who are looking forward to receiving their pensions in a few years' time on the basis of their many years of national insurance contributions? Will he address that great concern and give us an unqualified assurance that the Government will not means-test the basic old-age pension and will continue to index it?

Mr. Denham: There is no question of the Government's not honouring our manifesto commitment to uprate the basic state pension at least in line with prices. We have already met that commitment.

Pensions Review

Mr. Rammell: If she will make a statement on the progress of the review of pensions. [23053]

Mr. Don Foster: When she expects to announce the outcome of the pensions review. [23066]

The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): On 1 July, I announced the pensions review that we promised in our manifesto. We have already received more than 2,000 submissions. The next stage will be the publication of our proposals, which will be in the first half of this year, and consultations will follow.

Mr. Rammell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the biggest challenge facing the Government on pensions is the need to provide decent second-tier pensions for the 12 million people who are in work yet not in a company pension scheme? Does she further agree that we face that challenge because of the lamentable record of 18 years of Conservative Governments who, unbelievably, chose to try to encourage people to opt out of good company pension schemes in favour of fundamentally flawed private pension plans?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We face two challenges relating to pensions: one is the situation of today's pensioners, and we have said that the poorest of them must be our priority; but we are also determined—this is why we have our pensions review—to ensure that today's people at work, the next generation of pensioners, retire not on the basic state pension and means-tested benefits, but on the basic state pension and a good second pension. For many people who do not have access to occupational schemes, the only alternative has been private pensions, which have eaten up too much of their savings in administrative costs. That is why we issued our consultation document on stakeholder pensions.

Mr. Foster: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a result of a change in the computer system, many new pensioners have their pensions incorrectly assessed and often get less than the full allowance to which they are entitled? Will she take urgent action to resolve that situation and publicise her plans for the future? As part of the review, will she take action to ensure that such things do not happen again?

Ms Harman: Of course, we are concerned that pensions are paid accurately and promptly. We are always concerned that the system delivers that. I shall look further into the matter and perhaps write to the hon. Gentleman or find some other way of reporting on it to the House. There are a number of problems with the administration and delivery of pensions. The system needs to be modernised so that it gets it right first time, and all pensioners receive the income to which they are entitled.

Mr. Hope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that pension inequality has widened dramatically over the past 18 years and that if things carry on as they did under the previous Administration's policies, inequalities will continue to

widen, with the poorest pensioners suffering the most? With the cut in VAT on fuel, the zero rating of the gas levy and the winter fuel payments, have not the Labour Government done more for pensioners in the past six months than the Tories did in the past 18 years?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is right. Overall, the average income of pensioners has increased, but that masks the fact that the incomes of pensioners at the bottom of the income scale have increased by less than half as much as the incomes of those at the top. There is a widening divide in pensioner income inequality. We are determined to address that, which is why we have said that our priority will be the poorest pensioners. We have already taken steps to address that inequality, and we shall look further at those issues in the pensions review.

Mr. Butterfill: Have not the right hon. Lady and the Government done all that they can to create a shambles on pensions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer plundered pensions through his changes in advance corporation tax, much to the dismay of the Minister for Welfare Reform. Everyone has had to switch back into the state earnings-related pension scheme, which the Minister for Welfare Reform has said that he wants to abolish in the long term. What is the Government's policy? Are they going to sustain SERPS, encourage private pension provision or carry on with the present muddle?

Ms Harman: We have said that, in addition to the basic state pension, we want to improve second-tier pensions and make them accessible to all. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts in his allegations against the Government. The shambles on pensions came not from us but from the previous Government, who presided over growing inequality in which the poorest pensioners were left behind. They instigated the policy of mis-selling personal pensions and left hundreds of thousands of people uncompensated. We are acting on that. They left many working people with no opportunity to pay into a good-value second-tier pension. We are addressing all those issues. What is more, instead of doing it on the back of an envelope like the previous Government, we are having a proper consultation through our pensions review to build a consensus for the long term. That is the way to do it.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that among the poorest pensioners are those who lost their health working in industries such as coal mining and slate quarrying and their widows? Will she join me in welcoming last week's court announcement that compensation will be paid to coal miners and their widows for emphysema and chronic bronchitis? Will she give an assurance that this time, the needs of slate quarrymen and their widows will be taken into account?

Ms Harman: Everyone in the House will welcome the fact that, at long last, justice will be done to those whose health suffered through working in coal mining. Many people will wonder how it was that so many people ignored for so long the warnings about how working in coal mines can seriously damage health. It is a timely warning to us to ensure that workplaces are safe from


accident and disease. I shall draw the attention of my ministerial colleagues to the right hon. Gentleman's point about slate quarry employees.

Mr. Duncan Smith: In answer to an earlier question, the right hon. Lady said that she was a great supporter of occupational pensions and accepted her party's manifesto pledge to support them. Last week, however, the Government did a U-turn on pensions because they announced that they had increased the national insurance rebate after having said that it had no effect. They did so because people were having to opt back into SERPS as a result of the chaos caused by the Budget and the announcement of the abolition of ACT dividend credit.
Will the right hon. Lady therefore now accept that the Government have done a U-turn, and will she apologise to pensioners who have been messed around? Most of all, will she now say why, when the Government made that change, they did not include occupational pensions? Will she explain why those with occupational pensions will have to pay out extra money for the next five years, so that they stay in line with the pensions that they wish to receive? Why were occupational pensions ruled out?

Ms Harman: We have done no U-turn. No pensioner has been mistreated by the Government. We sought and considered the advice of the Government Actuary, who, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is there to advise on such matters. We took his advice, which was—as reported in a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—that there was some risk that some people might be advised to opt back into SERPS. We considered the Government Actuary's advice and we changed the rebates. That action was a normal part of the process, and we acted promptly and correctly. It is important not only to make an immediate and appropriate response but to address the long-term problem, and ensure that we have a strong economy and a high level of investments. Thus we can ensure a good return on people' s second-tier pensions in the future. Our approach has been based on that aim.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Lady has failed to answer the question that I asked her. As a result of the mess that the Government got into at the Budget, is it not a fact that the change to the national insurance rebates will cost the Government £500 million over the next five years? Does she accept that? Will she answer that Question, and apologise?

Ms Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second question. He will know that the Government Actuary's responsibility is to advise the Government when, from time to time, it is necessary to adjust rebates. We sought that advice and acted properly on it. The important thing is to ensure that in the longer term we have the right level of investment to sustain the growth of second pentions. We have taken the right action.

Family Credit (Wales)

Mr. Edwards: How many families are in receipt of family credit in (a) Monmouthshire and (b) Wales. [23054]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): Figures for Monmouthshire are not available. The latest available figures for the Benefits Agency offices in Newport and Cwmbran reveal that there were approximately 4,000 families receiving family credit.
The latest figures for Wales show that there were approximately 43,000 families receiving family credit.

Mr. Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that family credit is equivalent to the taxpayer subsidising bad employers, especially in Wales, the land of low pay? Does he further agree that the introduction of a national minimum wage will reduce expenditure on family credit and reduce the incidence of poverty pay, as well as the inequality between men and women in the labour market?

Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the Government's proposals on a national minimum wage are so welcome throughout the nation. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the immense amount of work that he did on behalf of low-paid workers before he entered the House. The national minimum wage will address that issue.

Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister tell us whether the earned income tax credit, which we understand is to replace family credit, will be subject to an affluence test?

Madam Speaker: In Wales?

Mr. Letwin: In Wales.

Mr. Bradley: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget statement that the Government propose an integrated tax and benefits system, of which that is part. It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage on his final plans.

Pensioners (Income Inequality)

Mr. Purchase: What estimate she has made of future income inequality rates among pensioners. [23055]

Mr. Denham: We want today's and tomorrow's pensioners to enjoy security in retirement. Estimates show that the gap between the best-off and worst-off pensioners will be even wider in the future than it is today under current policies, so a key objective of the pensions review is to ensure that pensioners have an adequate income in retirement and that they share fairly in rising national prosperity.

Mr. Purchase: Is it not the case that most people will rely on the state earnings-related pension scheme right through to the early part of the next century? There appears to be some doubt in people's minds about the future value of such pensions. Does my hon. Friend accept that, the more people go into private pensions, the more share churning goes on, the more fees go up and the more arrangement costs increase? In fact, through the rebate, taxpayers' money is going directly into the pockets of the


richest people in the country. In the pensions review, should we not reinforce our commitment to SERPS on a proper basis of related-to-earnings income in retirement?

Mr. Denham: We said in our manifesto that we shall retain SERPS as an option for those who wish to remain in it; and the pensions review is looking at a wide range of issues relating to the future of pension provision. Many people who enjoy security in retirement have a pension whose income comes from investments. It is possible to create a framework for value-for-money, flexible and secure stakeholder pensions, based on investment income, which can assist those with a basic state pension to enjoy security in retirement.

Mr. Flight: On the Government's own figures in the November consultative document, I recollect that there are about 40.5 million people with pension provision and 7.5 million without. Will the Minister give an undertaking that improving the position of those without pension provision outside the state will not come at the expense of those who have made provision, by the tax deductibility of pension contributions being reduced? That applies particularly to the over-40s who have made plans and who will find those plans all awry if there is yet another retrospective change in such taxation.

Mr. Denham: Taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we wish to encourage people to save for their retirement.

National Insurance Numbers

Ms Moran: What plans she has to take action to reduce the numbers of false national insurance numbers in circulation. [23056]

The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Government attach the highest importance to safeguarding the integrity of the national insurance system and its numbers system. There is a programme under way that is looking at the validity of each number: 750,000 numbers have been checked so far and the programme continues.

Ms Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply and ask that he investigates an issue raised with me by members of the Luton jobcentre and Benefits Agency, with whom I recently worked for a day. They expressed concern about the estimated 14 million to 17 million national insurance numbers in circulation, which might be subject to abuse. I am sure that he will want to address that issue, so that we can start to modernise our benefits system, get rid of the shambles that we inherited from the previous Tory Government and ensure that benefits are targeted on the most needy.

Mr. Field: To the three points that my hon. Friend raises, the answers are yes, yes and yes. In addition, section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. which is coming into operation over time, ensures that claims to benefit are made dependent on the

production of a valid national insurance number and that checks on each number will be made at the point of benefit claim.

Mr. Sayeed: The Prime Minister said that benefit fraud cost this country £4 billion to £5 billion a year. Does the Minister agree?

Mr. Field: The Government have always been careful about giving estimates of the amount of benefit fraud. It is sensible for the whole House to accept that we have a duty to be ever vigilant on behalf of taxpayers. That is the approach taken by the Government.

Mrs. Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell us how many of the national insurance numbers already examined are false?

Mr. Field: Of the more than three quarters of a million national insurance numbers that have been checked, there have been 133,000 plus duplicate accounts. A number of them are being studied for further investigation. I shall be happy to report progress to the House and to my hon. Friend on that basis.

Lone-parent Benefits (Yorkshire)

Mr. Allan: What estimate she has made of the number of new applicants for lone-parent benefits from Yorkshire in the year beginning April 1998. [23057]

Mr. Keith Bradley: It is estimated that around 25,000 new awards of income support will be made to lone parents in Yorkshire in 1998–99. Similar estimates cannot be made for new awards of the lone-parent rate of child benefit.

Mr. Allan: While any measures that help lone parents who are looking for paid work are welcome, does the Minister acknowledge that a proportion of those new claimants will wish to work full time at home, bringing up their young children? Does he accept that they do so with the best possible motive, of lone parents having to provide the parental contact of two parents? Will the Minister consider reinstating extra benefit for lone parents with children under five?

Mr. Bradley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. All families will now receive the same rates of child benefit and family premium, but existing lone parents will continue to receive the higher rates—there will be no cash losers. We have brought forward the new deal for lone parents, and an extra £25 million has been made available under the new deal, to lone parents who wish to work and whose youngest child is under five.

Ms Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the country, including Yorkshire, lone parents are attempting to improve their education by going to university to study and are finding it increasingly difficult to pay their mortgage, study full time and raise their children? Will my hon. Friend consider providing extra support for those lone parents and making a statement to the House at a future date?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I encountered a similar constituency case just


this weekend, involving exactly the same point. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall consider the matter urgently, to see what assistance may be available.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister been able to make an estimate for Yorkshire—or if he does not have that exact figure, for the rest of the United Kingdom—of the proportion of lone mothers who will come off benefit because of changes in circumstances in the first full year, such as going to work or finding a new partner? What proportion of existing lone mothers on premiums will come off benefit in the first year?

Mr. Bradley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments. I do not have those estimates, but I shall write to him with an evaluation of the point that he raised.

Maternity Grant (Crewe and Nantwich)

Mrs. Dunwoody: What was the average payment of maternity grant to mothers in the Crewe and Nantwich constituency in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1994–95; and how many received sums of £15,000 to £20,000. [23058]

Mr. Denham: Approximately 50,000 pregnant working women do not qualify for maternity pay because their earnings are below £62 per week. We want to help all women balance their careers and family responsibilities and ensure that the system is fair to all women.
I regret to say that the figures requested for Crewe and Nantwich are not available.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That was a rather long way of saying no; I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting reply. If we are to talk seriously about maternity payments, and the women who do not qualify as well as those who do, might it not be useful to do so on the basis of fact? To raise fears before all the replies are detailed is to cause enormous harm and considerable worry and to place needless pressure on people who do not need it.

Mr. Denham: It is important to set out the problem. The system is complex; it is hard to understand and difficult for employers to administer. It excludes 50,000 low-paid women from benefit each year, while others receive substantial amounts. The system is not seen to be fair, which is why we need to consider a coherent package of measures.

Pension Entitlement (Women)

Ms Dari Taylor: What plans she has to increase the pension entitlement of women. [23059]

Mr. Denham: One of the major challenges facing the pensions review announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July 1997 is to narrow the pensions gap between men and women, to give women more security in retirement. Many pensions are simply not flexible enough to cope with women's working patterns and the fact that they earn less on average than men and are more likely to have caring responsibilities. We are committed to introducing pension sharing for divorcing

couples from April 2000. Our proposals for citizenship and stakeholder pensions will be of particular benefit to women.

Ms Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that low pay and the earnings limit on contributory benefits have a serious impact on pensions? Does he therefore agree that the introduction of a statutory minimum wage will be very beneficial? Would he consider studying the idea of relaxing or abolishing the earnings limit on contributory benefits?

Mr. Denham: Measures such as the minimum wage, which enable women to earn more, will obviously help them to develop better pension rights, as will measures such as our proposed stakeholder pensions, which will bring within their reach value-for-money, flexible and secure pensions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor indicated some of the areas that he was studying in relation to national insurance and contributions limits, and will make proposals in due course.

Miss McIntosh: May I say how nice it is to see the Minister for Women in the House today and, through you, Madam Speaker, ask her whether she has had a chance to consider the impact of the reforms that the Government wish to make, by abolishing the independent taxation of women, on women's pension entitlement?

Mr. Denham: I believe that I am answering the question, Madam Speaker. I think the answer to that is—[Interruption.] The pensions review is considering a wide range of issues. One of the challenges that we set ourselves in establishing the pensions review was the much-needed one of narrowing the pensions gap between men and women, so we shall be considering many of the obstacles that currently prevent women from developing good pension rights.

Mr. Wicks: Perhaps I could ask the Minister for men a question. Given that many women in their working lives become carers of elderly relatives or perhaps of a frail husband, and as a consequence suffer the penalty of poverty in old age because of loss of pension entitlements, will the Government make provision in their plans to ensure that we have decent and generous credits for those in the community who, by doing vital work—although not in the waged economy—save the country billions of pounds?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Although we obviously want to encourage as many people as possible to develop a value-for-money, funded, invested second pension, obviously some people are unable to do so as they are exercising caring responsibilities and are not in a position to contribute. In the pensions review, we are examining proposals for a citizenship pension, with the aim of ensuring that people who spend a large part of their lifetime caring do not end up in retirement on means-tested benefits, which is a poor reward for the service that they have given to their families and the wider community.

Actors (National Insurance)

Mr. Key: What plans she has to change the status of actors with respect to national insurance contributions. [23060]

Mr. Denham: We are reviewing the position of performers for national insurance purposes and are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We have also met Equity. No decision has yet been made. An announcement will be made in due course.

Mr. Key: I wonder whether the Minister knows of many actors, dancers and musicians who really, really want to be unemployed. May we encourage him, in his negotiations with the Treasury, to persuade it that nurturing artistic talent is more important than administrative convenience? Until the Treasury sees sense, would he put his daughter on the stage?

Mr. Denham: I am sure that the House does not want to know about the forthcoming performance of a certain amateur ballet company in Southampton.
In considering this important issue and in trying to remove the uncertainty that has existed and to find a sustainable way to proceed, of course we shall take into account all considerations, including the importance of the performing arts to the economy and to the culture of this country.

Mr. Caplin: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that this is yet another mess that we have been left, after 18 years, because of the inaction of Conservative Governments?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right: the issue has been around for some time. It is important that everyone involved in the industry and the performing professions knows what the future will be. Therefore, we are reviewing the position, taking all factors into account. We shall make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Duncan Smith: When the Government were pushing through their proposals to cut benefit paid to lone parents, the Prime Minister was having a champagne reception at No. 10 Downing street with various glitterati from stage and screen. Did he tell them that they would have to foot the bill for that party because the Government were withdrawing that element of benefit?

Mr. Denham: I find it hard to believe that that is the most serious question that the hon. Gentleman can ask.

Pensioners (Fuel Bills)

Mrs. Ellman: If she will make a statement on her plans to help pensioners with their fuel bills. [23061]

Mr. Barry Jones: How much extra money will be provided for payments to pensioners for heating in the current financial year; and if she will make a statement. [23065]

Mr. Swinney: How many pensioners have received the additional payments for winter fuel bills announced

by the Chancellor in the Budget; when he expects that all pensioners eligible will have received this payment; and if he will make a statement. [23067]

Ms Harman: I am making a winter fuel payment of £50 to all the 1.5 million pensioners on income support. I can today announce to the House that payments have already been sent this week to 1,117,000 pensioners on income support. All other pensioners on income support will be sent their £50 payment by the end of the week, and they do not, of course, need to claim it. For pensioner households not on income support, I am making a £20 payment. We are making the payments as swiftly as possible and we expect to make the vast majority of them by the end of March.

Mrs. Ellman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which demonstrates what a real difference a Labour Government have made. Is she aware that the legacy of the past 18 years is that the health of my constituents is the sixth worst in the United Kingdom? Does she accept that keeping warm is essential to the health of pensioners, and that the steps that the Government have already taken will improve pensioners' health? Will she work with other Departments, so that pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere can have good, warm housing, a better income and assistance with their fuel bills?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course poverty and inequality in income are closely linked to inequality in health. She will know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health have been working on the matter and will shortly publish a Green Paper on the health of the nation, which will make explicit the relationship between the problems of the poorest in the country and issues of income inequality and health.

Mr. Jones: Can my right hon. Friend say whether constituents on disability living allowance and attendance allowance will have access to that money, how much new money is being pumped in over two years, and what sum is available to pensioners in Wales—perhaps as much as £30 million? Does she accept that pensioners greatly appreciate what the Government are doing for them, bearing in mind the record of the previous Government?

Ms Harman: I can assure my hon. Friend that all pensioners will receive a winter fuel payment—all pensioners, irrespective of whether they are on additional benefits or simply on the basic state pension. A sum of £400 million has been allocated to help pensioners with their winter fuel bills which, as I said, means an extra payment to those on income support. I thank my hon. Friend for the warm welcome that he has given from pensioners in his constituency to the extra help that the Government are giving to pensioners.

Mr. Swinney: Having travelled from Scotland to London today, I can confirm that it is very cold in Scotland. Does not the delay in payments of winter fuel compensation to pensioners prove the case for a properly designed and resourced cold climate allowance which takes account of the wind chill factor, which is a vital issue in many communities throughout the country?

Ms Harman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no delay in paying out winter fuel payments.


We have made the payments to those on income support a priority, which we shall have concluded by the end of this week. We will start the payments to those who are not on income support right away thereafter. We are doing it as fast as we can, within the limits of the machinery that we inherited from the previous Government. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that, next year, we shall have got the system sorted out, so we shall be able to make the payments more promptly.
The hon. Gentleman referred to wind chill. The wind chill factor would have been added to a cold weather payment system, which itself was already complex. It was feared that a complex system would have been made incomprehensible. Therefore, we made a decision that, in the first instance, our way in which to help pensioners with their winter fuel bills would be to make payments differentially to those on income support, but to ensure that all pensioners, irrespective of the temperature or wind chill factor, received their payments this year. We shall, of course, keep the issue of wind chill under review. There has been no delay in making the payments. We are making them as fast as we can because we regard them as a priority.

Mr. Rendel: The Secretary of State has told us that some of the £20 payments will not be made until March. Does she realise that many of the pensioners who will be receive their extra payments as late as that—even if they are not claiming income support now, they could be doing so then—are among the poorest in the country? Many of those people have pre-payment meters. What help will it be to them if they receive their extra money just in time for what, in effect, will be their summer fuel payments?

Ms Harman: We are concerned that all pensioners should receive their payment. We raised the issue when we were in opposition—it continues to be a priority now that we are in government—that 1 million pensioners who were entitled to income support did not claim it. They do not get their income support and so lose out, on average, by £14 a week. In addition, they do not receive cold weather payments and all the other benefits that are passported in.
Make no mistake, we are concerned about the estimated 1 million pensioners who are entitled to income support and who do not claim it. That is why, from April, we are setting up a programme that is designed to try to identify ways in which to bring more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. When we put it to the previous Government that 1 million pensioners did not receive the income support to which they were entitled, they said, "They do not choose to claim. Clearly they do not need the money." We do not take that approach. That is why we are investing to try to find ways in which to get to the poorest pensioners.
In the meantime, these pensioners will at least receive £20, although they should be receiving £50. It is to be hoped that we shall have tracked down many more of them by next year. That having happened, they will receive the uprated payment.

Mr. Beard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest inequalities in pensions is that between

men and women, and that the Government's winter payments, which go disproportionately to women, will do much to overcome that inequality?

Ms Harman: Two thirds of the £50 payments will go to women pensioners. One of the challenges that we have set for the pensions review is to narrow the pension gap between men and women. Women are less likely to make full national insurance contributions because they are likely to be below the lower earnings limit. They are less likely to be in well-paid work and have the opportunity of an occupational pension. They are more likely to be living on their own in retirement with no savings, no state earnings-related pension schemes, no occupational pensions and possibly no basic state pension. We are concerned to narrow the pension gap between men and women, which grew so alarmingly wide under the previous Tory Government.

Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State talks about Green Papers. Personally, I am sick and tired of hearing about Green Papers and reviews, and so are pensioners.
The right hon. Lady and her Government had an opportunity on Friday to help the poorest pensioners in the coldest parts of the country by accepting my Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill. What is the major difference between now and 12 months ago, when 176 Members—most of them Labour Members, including the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley)—took the view that it was necessary to take into account the wind chill factor so as to help the poorest and coldest pensioners? Their position now is a betrayal of everything that they talked about before the general election.

Ms Harman: One of the major differences between myself and the hon. Gentleman is that he voted for VAT on gas and electricity in pensioners' fuel bills to be 17.5 per cent., whereas the Government cut it to 5 per cent. and are giving extra payments to help with fuel bills. Perhaps he will spare us his bleeding-heart concern about pensioners, who did so badly under the Conservative Government.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending this very welcome measure to other groups on state benefits whose health can be adversely affected if they are unable to afford to keep warm, especially families with young children, including lone-parent families?

Ms Harman: All families on low incomes will particularly welcome the fact that we have cut VAT on gas and electricity, and that we will press ahead, through our environmental task force, with help for people to insulate their homes. The most important thing for people of working age on low incomes is to enable them to improve their incomes—by far more than they ever could on any rate of benefit—by helping them into work. That is why we are investing £3 billion in a welfare-to-work programme to ensure that people of working age can have opportunities for high-quality training and worthwhile jobs.

Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady kindly tell the House, first, why the Government are using taxpayers' money on an advertising campaign for a scheme that is


being given automatically to every pensioner in the country? Secondly, how much is it costing? Thirdly, why—against the advice of civil servants, who recommended to Ministers that this was a party political advertising campaign and should not have taxpayers' money—are the Government pressing ahead? Will the right hon. Lady be kind enough not to give a spurious answer, to avoid the sound bite and to answer the question for once?

Ms Harman: I shall seek to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions. For a start, there was no recommendation that we should not go ahead with the advertising campaign because it was political. We have gone ahead with it because this is a wholly new payment which has never been paid before.
Hon. Members have raised the issue of pensioners and giving them their entitlement. Pensioners throughout the country, who will get a £50 giro on their mats, need to know that they are entitled to cash it, that it is not an overpayment, that it is not a mistake and that it is to help with their fuel bills. We also have to ensure—

Mr. Burns: How much?

Ms Harman: I will answer the hon. Gentleman; I promised to answer all his questions. I am explaining why we are going ahead with the advertising campaign, if he will let me finish.
There are many pensioners on income support who might be concerned that this money was an overpayment or mistake and simply leave the giro uncashed. We know that there is a problem of pensioners not claiming benefits. They are entitled to know that this payment is coming, that it is for them and that they can safely cash it and use the money.
On pensioners who are not on income support, hon. Members have raised the issue about our not being able to pay the money as fast as we should like. We want pensioners to know that this money will be coming to them, that they are entitled to it and that they can use £20-worth more fuel than they would otherwise have been able to do. That is why we are proceeding with the advertising campaign. We are spending £400 million over two years on extra winter fuel payments for pensioners. We are spending £1.7 million on information about entitlement. We have to ensure that pensioners know what they are entitled to and what they are getting. That is not only appropriate, but necessary.

Landlord Benefit Fraud

Helen Jones: What proposals she has to tackle organised landlord benefit fraud. [23062]

Mr. Field: The initiatives include new powers for local authorities to collect information, a new criminal offence, and a new power for local authorities and central Government to share information when they attempt to crack down on fraud.

Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I used to prosecute Department of Social Security fraud and I am reluctant to deprive my ex-colleagues of a chance to follow up cases in the courts. However,

does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to tackle fraud is to prevent it from happening in the first place? What plans does he have to identify areas where fraud is most likely to occur and to target resources at those areas?

Mr. Field: As my hon. Friend suggests, our plans are to ensure that counter-fraud measures are built in at the start of any benefit claim. May I stress that, while the Government attach enormous importance to countering benefit fraud, we attach equal importance to seeking out diligently those who are eligible for benefit but not claiming it. We run both those policies in tandem, which is one of the many factors that distinguish us from the Opposition.

Child Benefit

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If she will make a statement on the future of child benefit. [23063]

Mr. Field: I remind the right hon. Lady of the two commitments made in our manifesto.

Mrs. Bottomley: When I worked for the right hon. Gentleman 27 years ago, we campaigned to protect children from the Chancellor's threats. Will he give an undertaking to work as hard and to fight with as much determination today to protect children from the Chancellor's menaces? I have not changed my mind about the importance of recognising the extra costs and needs of children at every income level. Has the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind?

Mr. Field: I have not changed my mind, but when the right hon. Lady and I worked at the Child Poverty Action Group, we were both trying to protect family allowance—it is now called child benefit—from a Tory Chancellor.

Mr. David Heath: In view of the Secretary of State's well-publicised concerns, how many women who are millionaires draw child benefit?

Mr. Field: If the hon. Gentleman would like to table a question on that specific point, I shall try to find the answer.

Mrs. Gillan: Does the Minister realise that working mothers throughout the country have been seriously alarmed at the recent report in The Times of 15 January that, in order to tax child benefit and cap maternity benefit, the Chancellor may end the independent taxation of women? Does he agree that abandoning separate taxation would further undermine the institution of marriage and make it more tax advantageous to cohabit? Will he now rule that out completely to set working mothers' minds at rest?

Mr. Field: Traditionally, taxation issues are the province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Disability Benefits

Mr. Winnick: If she will make a statement on proposed changes to disability benefits. [23064]

Ms Christine Russell: If she will report progress on welfare reform with particular reference to disability benefits. [23070]

Ms Harman: Benefits for people with sickness and disabilities are part of our review of the social security system. We shall come forward with proposals later in the year and they will be followed by full consultation.

Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to reassure disabled people that their position will not be worsened?

Ms Harman: I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important to reassure disabled people that their position will not be worsened—far from it. Two principles drive our social security review in respect of people with health problems or disabilities. The first is to ensure that those who cannot work have the right support, whether it is cash or services, or a combination of the two. The second is to ensure that we do not follow the path of the previous Government, who told people with health problems and disabilities that, even though they might have some capacity to work and might want to work, they would be written off to a life on benefits. Our approach is to extend opportunities to people with ill health or disabilities. We are backing that with £195 million of investment in innovative schemes so that the minority—it is, however, a significant minority—of those who are long-term sick or disabled can have attention paid to their needs and can be supported in getting into, and staying in, work.

Ms Russell: Before I was elected to the House, I worked with people, most of whom had learning disabilities. I am still in close touch with them and, last week, I had a meeting with representatives of DIAL house in Chester. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is familiar with that organisation. Given the concern fuelled by all the scaremongering in the media, will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that, before any key decisions are finally taken, there will be full consultation with organisations such as the Disability Benefits Consortium and the DIAL network?

Ms Harman: I am happy to give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that the organisations that she mentioned and many others will be fully consulted. I want to allay her concerns. She raised the important issue of the prospects in adult life of people with learning disabilities, which is of particular concern to them and to their carers. Although we provide a proper framework and many opportunities for people with learning difficulties while they are of school age, many of them are written off when they reach school-leaving age. They feel that they cannot continue to develop, and their parents feel a sense of desperation and worry about whether there will be any framework for the lives of their sons or daughters when they are not around to care for them. We must ensure that we take account of people's abilities and capacities as well as their disabilities and incapacities, and we must

provide opportunities for all. The days when people were told, "You've got an incapacity. You've got a disability. You're written off. Here's some money"—

Madam Speaker: Order. All the right hon. Lady was asked for was a categorical assurance. I have to take two more questions on this subject.

Mr. Amess: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, judging by the number of telephone calls and letters that 1 have received, my constituents in Southend, West already believe that this rotten Labour Government are cutting disability benefit? Will she explain to the House why, since 1 May, many of my severely disabled constituents have been called in by doctors for further examination and have had their benefits taken away? If they have gone to appeal, their cases have taken an awfully long time to be heard.

Ms Harman: That is another first-rate example of—I do not want to use an unparliamentary word—synthetic concern. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the benefit integrity project, which was crafted, fashioned and consulted on by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) when he was Secretary of State for Social Security. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into a lather about this issue, he has missed the boat. Our approach is to keep a careful eye on the benefit integrity project to ensure that people on disability living allowance receive the right amount of that benefit under the current conditions of entitlement. However, that has nothing to do with our review of benefits for the long-term sick and disabled, so the hon. Gentleman's argument does not wash.

Mr. Collins: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the purpose of her review is to reduce spending on people with disabilities?

Ms Harman: The purpose of our review is to ensure the right level of care and support for those who cannot work, and to ensure maximum opportunities for those who can work. The exercise is driven by principle, not by cuts.

Status of Women (Commission)

Siobhain McDonagh: If she will make a statement on the planned meeting of the commission on the status of women in March. [23068]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Ms Joan Ruddock): As part of our focus on women during our presidency of the European Union, I am pleased to announce that I will be heading the EU delegation at the next annual meeting of the United Nations commission on the status of women, which will be held in New York in March. I will be working with women's organisations and our EU partners to ensure that we represent the views of European women.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank the Minister for that reply. The commission will consider violence against women. Today is the launch of domestic violence week in my borough of Merton. Although services are available, women who suffer from domestic violence, and the doctors, nurses and health visitors, who may be the first people with whom those women come into contact,


often do not know what help is provided. Will my hon. Friend ensure that consideration is given to finding ways in which to inform everyone, across the board and not on a departmental basis, about what services are available?

Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I can assure her not only that action to prevent violence against women is one of the major priorities of the Ministers for Women, but that it is part of the United Nations platform for action on women.
By raising the issues in an international forum, we can ensure that we contribute to the dialogue, and make it possible for women throughout the world to understand

that we are all concerned about the violence that is inflicted on them and will tackle it. In this country we, as Ministers for Women, are already working across Government with our colleagues to ensure that we deliver better services, and that every woman who is subjected to violence is confident that she can come forward, be treated with respect and gain the support that she needs if she has to go to court—and, indeed, after court.
Unlike the previous Administration, we have put the perspectives of women at the heart of our Government. Already, £30,000 has been allocated to the women's aid helpline in England.

Iraq

Mr. Tam Dalyell: [by private notice]: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations with Iraq.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): With permission, I shall make a statement on the present crisis with Iraq over the United Nations Special Commission weapons inspections.
The present regime of weapons inspections was put in place in Iraq following the Gulf war, as part of the ceasefire agreement. Its objectives are to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and to prevent Iraq from reviving the capacity to develop, produce, stockpile and deploy such weapons of mass destruction.
Despite repeated obstruction from the Iraqi regime, UNSCOM's achievements have been significant. Since its inception, it has destroyed 38,000 weapons with the capability to deliver chemical and biological agents; it has also destroyed significant quantities of production equipment and associated facilities. But serious gaps remain in Iraq's full, final and complete declarations, particularly in regard to biological weapons.
If UNSCOM's work were halted now, Iraq would be able to generate biological weapons within a matter of weeks, and could achieve a chemical capability within months. It is vital for the continuing security of the region and more widely that UNSCOM be allowed full and unrestricted access to all sites that it wishes to inspect, and as much time as it needs to complete its task.
On 12 January, UNSCOM began a new inspection aimed at uncovering concealed activities. The Iraqi regime blocked the inspection on the specious grounds of an alleged US bias on inspection teams. This inspection, led by Mr. Scott Ritter, a United States citizen with a distinguished record of work for UNSCOM, consisted of 44 personnel from 17 different countries.
UNSCOM's executive chairman, Richard Butler, was in Baghdad last week for talks with Tariq Aziz aimed at resolving the crisis. The results were disappointing. Ambassador Butler's briefing to the Security Council on 23 January, immediately after his visit, made it clear that the Iraqis were determined to persist with their policy of obstruction.
Iraq's attempt to impose a moratorium on inspections of so-called presidential sites, pending the outcome of technical evaluation meetings—announced during Ambassador Butler's visit—is unacceptable, as is the deadline given by Saddam Hussein for UNSCOM to complete its work. It is not for Iraq to dictate terms and conditions to the Security Council. Unrestricted access to all sites is essential for UNSCOM's work, both now and for longer-term monitoring. The technical evaluation meetings, which will look at Iraq's declarations on its past programmes, are an entirely separate issue.
We are actively pursuing a diplomatic solution to Iraq's latest attempts to obstruct the vital work of UNSCOM. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others are in regular contact with colleagues on the Security Council in an effort to defuse the situation, but we cannot rule out

military action if the diplomatic approach fails to shift Saddam Hussein's stance. As a precautionary measure, HMS Invincible arrived in the Gulf on 25 January, and is engaged in work-up training with allied naval forces off the coast of Bahrain. We are keeping the situation under close review, and have not ruled out further deployments should the crisis continue. There are no immediate plans to deploy extra forces, but HMS Illustrious, which is at present in Gibraltar, will embark a detachment of RAF Harriers tomorrow, and will then commence work-up training in the Mediterranean.
Iraq is fully aware of its international obligations, and of what it needs to do for the process of relaxing sanctions to begin. Relevant Security Council resolutions make that perfectly clear. The Security Council is united in its demand for Iraqi compliance. There is no question of entering into negotiations with Iraq; Security Council resolutions are non-negotiable.
The Government remain very conscious of the sufferings of the Iraqi people, with whom we have no quarrel. The UK has provided some £94 million in aid to the Iraqi people since 1991. Much of that money has been used to fund projects by United Kingdom nongovernmental organisations, including the Mines Advisory Group, which is involved in a major mine clearing operation, and the Save The Children Fund, which is focusing on water and sanitation projects aimed at helping children.
The United Kingdom has also co-sponsored successive Security Council resolutions, allowing Iraq to export oil in exchange for humanitarian aid. For several years, Saddam chose not to avail himself of the opportunity to provide for his people under that scheme. Since its implementation in 1996, oil-for-food has faced a number of cynical obstructive tactics by the Iraqi regime. For the sake of the people of Iraq, we remain prepared to discuss with Iraq ways of improving the scheme's effectiveness.

Mr. Dalyell: What does Mr. Primakov have to say about military action?
What do the Chinese say about military action?
What do the French say about it?
My hon. Friend the Minister refers to Scott Ritter's distinguished record, but is it really necessary to have a former captain of the US Marine Corps as the leader of this very delicate operation in the Arab world?
How can there be United Nations military action without the unambiguous support of the Security Council?
Can the Minister name just one Arab country that is in favour of military action? As one who went on holiday in October to Iran, I can say that even the Iranians, who had casualties of first world war proportions—more than 1 million—as a result of that awful Iran-Iraq war and Saddam Hussein's aggression, do not think that an American attack, inevitably on the Iraqi people, would be a sensible proposition.
Three years after the Gulf war, I visited the Amariya and was taken, as is every first-day visitor to Baghdad, to see the impregnated bodies carbonated against the concrete of a destroyed shelter. I suggest that an Exocet attack without massive numbers of ground troops will simply strengthen the position of Saddam Hussein rather than weaken it.
What is the precise purpose of military action? Would not it be sensible to try serious, dignified dialogue of a kind that, to many of us, seems not properly to have been tried?
Finally, as a former member of the executive of the British-American parliamentary group and a friend of the United States, may I ask whether, before military action is taken, there is concern that in the present febrile atmosphere in Washington we shall not slide into what was somewhat indelicately called in the Arab press
the war of Clinton's penis"?

Mr. Lloyd: The composition of the UNSCOM inspection teams will and must remain a matter for Richard Butler who heads that organisation. The composition of those teams is not negotiable and their members are picked on merit, not on nationality. That will continue to be Richard Butler's aim. As head of UNSCOM, Richard Butler was in Baghdad last week and engaged in patient negotiations with the Iraqis. He conducted the negotiations in good faith, but Tariq Aziz and the Iraqi regime did not respond.
I should like to establish that it is most certainly the case that this country is looking to every diplomatic avenue to end the present situation, consistent with our achieving our objectives, which are unrestricted access to all sites in Iraq; a recognition that there can be no time constraint on the operations of the inspections teams; and no restriction on the personnel in those teams. To achieve that through diplomatic mechanisms is most certainly the intention of the British Government, and should be the intention of us all. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that if that does not have the required impact, we—like the whole world, recognising Saddam Hussein's outrageous history—would not be in a position, at this stage or any other, to rule out a military option.

Mr. Michael Howard: The Minister is right to emphasise the importance of exploring every diplomatic option, but what progress has been made in enforcing the will of the United Nations and the international community since the Minister for the Armed Forces answered a private notice question from me on this subject on 14 November? Is it not the case that Saddam Hussein has continued to cock a snook at the United Nations and continued to ignore the welfare of his people?
Can the Minister confirm that Security Council resolution 687 provides sufficient authority for military action to be taken if necessary, without any further resolution from the Security Council? Can he give us an assurance that Britain's aircraft carrier capability—he referred earlier to both HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious—which is clearly regarded as an important element in the present situation, will not be in any way diminished after the strategic defence review?

Mr. Lloyd: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his initial remarks. He was absolutely right to say that since the parliamentary exchange in November, Saddam Hussein has not modified his behaviour in any material sense; rather the opposite: he has continued to find specious reasons for blocking UNSCOM's progress

in a way that is not only unacceptable, but is threatening for his near neighbours, perhaps for his own people, and for the world.
We believe that Saddam Hussein continues to have the capacity to fill two missiles with anthrax every week. That capacity is well documented. I do not need to tell the House how potentially dangerous that is. Within that framework, of course we will continue to pursue every diplomatic avenue, but I repeat that we will not rule out the military option. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to point out that Security Council backing for that already exists.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if, during a period when concentration inevitably must be on the use of aircraft carriers for purposes to do with Iraq, I do not respond to his question about the strategic defence review. I am sure that he understands that there will be an opportunity to raise that question on another occasion.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that the bombing raids during the Gulf war equalled in force seven Hiroshimas, yet failed to bring down Iraq? Is he aware that the United Nations has confirmed that 1 million children in Iraq are starving and that 500,000 have died? Is he aware that 54 Catholic bishops in the United States have appealed to President Clinton to end the sanctions? Did he note, over the weekend, that the anthrax in Iraq was supplied by the United States and that the leader of the biological research department in Baghdad had attended a seminar on anthrax in 1988?
Is the Minister aware that, despite the fact that the United Nations Security Council has demanded compliance by Iraq, there is absolutely no United Nations authority for military action by the United States or Britain; nor is there in the Arab world? Is it not time that Britain stood up to the United States and spoke for Europe during the period of the British presidency, instead of going along with a war that might be convenient for the present American Administration for quite different reasons?

Mr. Lloyd: No. It is most certainly time that this Government stood up for the people of Iraq who are not represented by Saddam Hussein and who have experienced being attacked by Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons. It is about time that this Government continued to stand up for the rights of the people in the region who are threatened by Saddam Hussein and for the rights of the world, which has every reason to take tough and consistent action against a dictator who wants to create weapons of mass destruction, both biological and chemical, and thereby jeopardise the peace not only of Iraq's people but of people throughout the world.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister remember that, after the invasion of Kuwait but before the outbreak of the Gulf war, we had six months of serious dialogue with Saddam Hussein during which he proved himself to be as intransigent and obstructive as he has since? Will the Minister confirm that there are no sanctions against imports into Iraq of either food or medicine, and that the Iraqi Government are entitled and able to import as much food and medicine as they choose? In that unpredictable set of circumstances, is not the one thing that we can be clear about that, if the military option


were to be withdrawn, immediate efforts would be restored in Iraq to achieve weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam Hussein undertook to destroy as part of the peace settlement?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right that, as part of the peace settlement, Saddam Hussein undertook to destroy precisely those weapons of mass destruction. It has been his failure to complete that undertaking which has led us to the current situation. The hon. and learned Gentleman is equally right to say that both food and medicine are outside any Security Council restriction. It is therefore up to Saddam Hussein not to play with the system, as he has done in the past, but to use that opportunity to feed and to care for the needs of his own population. The fact that he chooses not to do so will be judged not only by the House but by the world as a measure of the man and as a measure of his brutality against his own people. Such considerations count significantly in this type of exchange.
The position of the British Government, who were sponsors of the original oil-for-food deal, is that, of course, we will examine carefully any suggestion of relaxation, specifically in ensuring that food and medicine are available for the suffering people of Iraq. In turn, we call on Saddam Hussein to show the same consideration for his own people.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the voices of appeasement of Saddam Hussein—which are still to be heard—had prevailed seven years ago, Saddam Hussein would still be in occupation of Kuwait and probably also of wide tracts of the middle east? Does he agree that, seven years or more after Saddam was driven from Kuwait, it is utterly intolerable that there should still be any question of his having the ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction? Is it not obvious to all but the purblind that that man is the greatest menace to world peace and world equilibrium since Adolf Hitler?
Is my hon. Friend aware that the House will certainly support the Government's and the United Nations' efforts to achieve a peaceful diplomatic solution, but that if the necessity arises to take military action, the Government will have the overwhelming support not only of the House but of Labour Members?

Mr. Lloyd: I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks. He is right to say that Saddam Hussein would have shown no voluntary willingness to move himself from Kuwait had it not been for the actions of the United Nations. Equally, since then, Saddam has been prevented from committing the type of excesses to which he was attracted before the UN action only because of the regime that has been maintained. Saddam' s ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction threatens both the region and the world, and the world expects the United Nations to act decisively to put a stop to it.

Mr. John Wilkinson: For the sake of the peace of the region, and because of the dire precedent that it would set for the international world order were the United Kingdom and the United States of America to back down in the face of the flagrant challenge to the United Nations posed by Saddam Hussein, the hon. Gentleman and his policy deserve support.
However, although the United Kingdom has the presidency of the European Union, where is the much-vaunted common foreign and security policy? Is it not more true that, as ever, we stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies in defence of peace and liberty than that our European friends are rallying to the cause of those virtues?

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks in which he gave his support for the Government's position and for the UN. That is very welcome. I repeat that the UN will search for every possible diplomatic solution, but there can be no question of backing down. That is the position of the UN which, I must say to him, involves the whole world. Our opposition to Saddam Hussein must continue on that basis.

Ann Clwyd: Is it not the case—as my hon. Friend the Minister has suggested—that we are not dealing with a rational human being; that Saddam Hussein is not a man with whom one can negotiate; and that, 10 years ago this March, he practised genocide against his own people when 5,000 died at Halabja? Anyone who wants to see bodies, or people injured by Saddam Hussein rather than by the Americans and the allies, should look at the survivors and the graves at Halabja.
Is it not the case that not only has the resolution allowing UNSCOM access to sites in Iraq been flouted, but Saddam Hussein is still practising ethnic cleansing against his own people? In the past few months, thousands of refugees have been forced into northern Iraq because Saddam Hussein has thrown them out of their own homes. Recently—through a prison cleansing system—he has executed hundreds upon hundreds of prisoners, including Kuwaiti prisoners, in Iraqi gaols. My hon. Friend the Minister would have my full support for any action he took to get rid of this terrible war criminal who ought to be hounded out of existence.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. She knows as well as most about the intolerable burden faced by Iraqi people of all backgrounds who have suffered under Saddam Hussein, and she referred to the destruction of Halabja. Since then—and certainly since the end of the Gulf war—Saddam Hussein has continued to persecute significant parts of Iraq's population indiscriminately and brutally. The recent report from the UN representative, Mr. van der Stoel, indicated that the humanitarian situation at the moment was horrendous. None of that can take away from the responsibility of Saddam Hussein and the indifferent, callous and brutal way in which he chooses to treat his own people.

Mr. Tim Collins: Given what the Minister has said, does he accept that there will be a widespread welcome for his proposition that the option of military force cannot be ruled out because it is imperative that Saddam Hussein should be denied access to weapons of mass destruction? Accordingly, may I ask him to reflect further on his reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, on the importance of the British aircraft carrier fleet? Once this


incident is over, will he make representations to the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury on the usefulness of that aircraft carrier capability for our foreign policy?

Mr. Lloyd: The fact that the aircraft carriers have been deployed demonstrates their value in these circumstances. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is sitting beside me. He will have registered the hon. Gentleman's remarks and will reflect on them in days to come.

Mr. Bernie Grant: I find it amazing that hon. Members can, quite rightly, condemn Saddam Hussein for his atrocities but say nothing about Israel and its atrocities against the Palestinians and others. Will my hon. Friend the Minister answer a straight question with a straight answer? Who supports Britain and the United States in the Security Council? Does France, China or any other member support Britain and the US? Or is this yet another occasion on which Britain trails behind the coat tails of the United States of America and does not have the courage to stand on its own two feet?

Mr. Lloyd: I am very disappointed with my hon. Friend. We can hardly compare the issue of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a dictator such as Saddam Hussein with almost any other issue. Britain stands firmly behind the United Nations Security Council resolutions that make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must destroy his weapons of mass destruction. We shall make every diplomatic effort to secure a peaceful resolution, but it is vital for the world's future that the United Nations stands firm on the issue and insists that those weapons are destroyed.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not important that two things should be made clear? The first is that the difficulties, crisis, or whatever, in Washington will not in any way deter Britain and the United States from taking the necessary action. Secondly, the Cabinet should know that if military action is necessary—I and many other hon. Members incline increasingly to the view that there is no longer an alternative—it will have the overwhelming support of hon. Members of all parties and, perhaps even more important, of the public.
Those who are calling for no action are precisely those who did not want Kuwait to be liberated: the appeasers who, time and again, have pleaded for no sanctions and no military action. They do not speak in any way whatever for the British people, except perhaps for a tiny minority: the same percentage that they now represent in the House of Commons.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend asks, in essence, about Britain's motives for contemplating the actions of which I have spoken. Let me repeat, again and again, that we will make every effort to find diplomatic solutions to the present impasse. That is right and proper, as long as those solutions involve the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction and no restriction of UNSCOM's right to carry out inspections as the United Nations has charged it to do.
Talk of a possible military option inevitably involves any British Government and Parliament in the most serious debate. We are talking about putting our own

people's lives at risk, and no one should talk about that frivolously or lightly. Let me earnestly impress on the House the fact that to begin to divert the issue into a matter of internal politics elsewhere is to deprive ourselves of the opportunity to make a rational decision of the most profound importance to our people in the British armed forces.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Could this military action be undertaken without the direct approval, by a vote, of the United Nations? What incentive has Saddam Hussein to comply when the United States has said categorically that, come what may, sanctions will not be lifted in any significant form for as long as he remains in power? Will not the victims of any military actions, like the victims of the sanctions, be innocent Iraqi people, not the regime?

Mr. Lloyd: Let me make it quite clear that the resolution of the present impasse lies firmly in Baghdad and in the hands of Saddam Hussein. The House, the country and the whole world must understand and acknowledge that fact. Saddam Hussein can, if he so chooses, resolve that the situation should come to an end. The sanctions regime can come to an end if he undertakes to destroy the weapons of mass destruction, as he has already agreed to do. No one in the Government or in the House should talk up the possibility of military action, but if it were to come to that, responsibility would lie firmly with Saddam Hussein and people in Baghdad.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does not the gravity of the mounting crisis demand the greatest possible unity of purpose in the House, among the wider public and among the Gulf war coalition, to face down the Iraqi dictator, who is using his people for his own ends? Is it not sad that the Gulf war coalition is having difficulty re-establishing itself because of Arab hostility to the Israeli Government's views and because of the policies of some of our allies? Does my hon. Friend fear that the personal difficulties of the US President may impede the unity of purpose and direction that is necessary in this conflict?

Mr. Lloyd: I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that the motivation of the British Government and the United Nations must be confined solely to the situation in Iraq and the debate about the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, we are bound to seek to build the widest coalition for diplomatic or any other form of action against Saddam Hussein. It is right and proper that we do that, and we will continue to do so. Our motivation, our preoccupation, is the insistence that Saddam Hussein destroys the weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Ernie Ross: My hon. Friend has the overwhelming support of the majority of hon. Members. Saddam Hussein deals in wishful thinking rather than analysis. Anyone who thinks that it is possible to have a reasonable conversation with the man needs only to meet him to understand that. It is obvious that when there is a hiatus in the middle east peace process, no one in the Arab world is going to make clear publicly their feelings. However I can say, as one with some knowledge of the matter, that all his neighbours are concerned that he may be allowed to regain the power that he had before we gained the ability to remove some of it through UNSCOM and other mechanisms.
There have been recent reports from the UN Secretary-General and his special envoy in Baghdad suggesting that the oil-for-aid resolution that we promoted is not meeting the requirements of the people of Iraq. If Kofi Annan brings to the UN Security Council proposals to increase oil for aid from $2 billion to $3 billion so that humanitarian aid can be given to the Iraqi people, will we support them?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is as knowledgeable about support in the Arab world as anyone in the House. I am grateful for his observations. I have no doubt that the situation is as he described it, and that there is considerable support in the Arab world for restraining Saddam Hussein and for a solution that ensures that he cannot offer threats to his neighbours in the middle and long term.
On humanitarian aid, I repeat that we have no doubt that responsibility for the suffering of the Iraqi people lies firmly with Saddam. He chooses not to make food available to his own people or to allow the oil-for-food programme to work properly. Nevertheless, Benon Sevan, the head of the UN sanctions implementations unit, is working on a report for the Secretary-General. We would inevitably look sympathetically at any practical steps on the oil-for-food programme that would ease the plight of ordinary people. However, that would of course still depend on the so far unforthcoming assistance of Saddam.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to be one of those who seek to appease Saddam Hussein, but my hon. Friend said that one of our objectives should be to liberate the Iraqi people from his clutches. The Gulf war seven years ago failed to do that; sanctions since have failed. Why should we have any confidence in further military action leading to that desirable objective?

Mr. Lloyd: I must remind the House that it was military action which threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, which was not insignificant in its own right. Since then, it has been the continuation of military and other activities which have prevented Saddam from terrorising his neighbours, even if they have not, sadly, prevented him from terrorising his own people. Within that context, the fact that Saddam has continued to flout both UN and world opinion by the production of weapons of mass destruction is something which we must deal with now. We choose to do so through diplomatic mechanisms, but we do not rule out the military option.

Dr. George Turner: May I assure my hon. Friend that the vast majority of British people will recognise that nothing would undermine the possibility of a successful diplomatic solution more than to rule out the possibility of the use of military force? Does he also accept that the numbers involved in the coalition who are willing to say that they will not rule out military force is equally important to strengthening the diplomatic efforts? If we act, is there not a need to ensure that we do so in conjunction with the largest possible number of allies? Are there any conditions that the Government would set on our direct involvement in military action?

Mr. Lloyd: I repeat that Britain and the United Nations are still engaged in active diplomacy on this matter.

Richard Butler visited Baghdad last week on behalf of the UN, but I am afraid that his report back to the Security Council was not a happy one. Nevertheless, he was engaged precisely in the process of trying to bring Saddam to his senses without the inevitable consequences that would come from military activity. No one ought to talk up the possibility of the military option at this stage, and no one wants to. We are seeking to ensure that world opinion is firmly of the view that the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam, an unstable dictator, is a threat to the region and the world. That threat must be dealt with by a coalition of public opinion on a worldwide scale. We will keep in touch with that opinion without ruling out any of the options that we have discussed today.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Does the Minister agree with me that it is somewhat unfortunate that comment across the House today appears to be polarising, and that references to immediate military action and appeasement are both equally inappropriate at this stage while there is still scope for diplomacy? Does he further agree that if we are to move the diplomatic effort forward, we need to show the same sort of willingness to take risks as the Government have shown with regard to Northern Ireland? Will he assure me that we will give that type of leadership to the diplomatic effort on Iraq?
Can my hon. Friend further assure me that he has remembered, as others in the House seem to have forgotten, that Saddam Hussein acquired such weapons of mass destruction under the current regime of inspections? Does he agree that even when such inspections have gone ahead unfettered, that inspections regime has proved to be ineffective? The outcomes of diplomacy must include not only avoiding military action but putting in place a system of inspection and weapon destruction that gets rid of those weapons and does not allow Saddam Hussein to continue to build them up.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that no one should talk up the possibility of military action beyond its current standing, which is that the military option exists and will not be discounted or discarded. That will remain the case until the situation is resolved.
Flexibility in negotiations and a willingness to take risks were displayed last week in Baghdad by Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, but that was not reciprocated by any willingness on the part of Tariq Aziz and the Iraqi Government to take risks. They are to be deplored all the more for the fact that they are not showing any signs of wishing to seek a proper solution.
I must correct my hon. Friend on one point: he says that UNSCOM has not been successful, but during the period in which UNSCOM has been in operation some 38,000 weapons have been destroyed as a direct result of its activities. UNSCOM has been a success and we should say so clearly. It has not been the complete success we want, but that is because of Saddam Hussein's intransigence. That is why we insist that UNSCOM should be allowed to do the job in the way it needs to do it and should finish the job, which means the destruction of all the weapons of mass destruction.

Points of Order

Mr. Oliver Letwin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you give guidance to a new Member on how the House can intervene to protect a former civil servant, Anne Bullen? She has apparently been made subject to a gagging order—or rather, a gagging agreement—in order to protect the Foreign Secretary against grave embarrassment; and we understand that the Whitehall publicity machine is now engaging in a programme of vilification against her.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do not we in the House rely totally on the integrity and independence of civil servants throughout government to give us answers to the questions we ask of the Executive? What assurances can the House be given that civil servants will be protected from the casual and gratuitous sackings by Ministers that are apparently now going on in Government Departments? Surely the House and you, Madam Speaker, should be extremely concerned about this matter. I seek your guidance on what we can do to protect civil servants from Ministers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps when you do your research, you will ask Clive Ponting to comment.

Madam Speaker: I have been in the House long enough—some 25 years—to have had a number of experiences. Both the Opposition Members who raised this matter know full well the use of the Order Paper. There are parliamentary questions, Adjournment debates and numerous other ways in which hon. Members on both sides of the House can raise these matters, and it is up to them to do so, if they think it necessary.

Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 21 January].

[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair.]

Clause 22

TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS

Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 152, page 12, line 41, after 'Wales', insert 'or'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 145, page 13, line 2, leave out from 'Crown' to end of line 6.

Government amendment No. 136.

No. 147, in clause 23, page 13, leave out lines 22 to 32.

Government amendment No. 137.

No. 244, in page 14, line 5, at end insert
'but a Minister of the Crown shall not exercise a power by virtue of this subsection unless he has consulted the Assembly.'.

Government amendments Nos. 138 and 139.

Mr. Davies: The amendment is being discussed with a number of other amendments, two of which, like amendment No. 152, stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I hasten to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that these are probing amendments and that I am not wedded absolutely to the word "or". On the other hand, I want it to be clear that, although Ministers have to keep their eye on the big picture, Back Benchers have to try to scrutinise legislation and we on the Back Benches should be delighted if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to accept the amendment.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Before my right hon. Friend puts his case, I should tell him at the outset that if I am minded to reject the amendment, it will not be on the basis of its defective wording.

Mr. Davies: I am not sure whether that gives me encouragement. A piece of paper is floating around—I do not know whether it is the special notes for Ministers or whether the notes are available to all Back Benchers or only to certain Government Back Benchers. I see the parliamentary private secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), nodding, but I am not sure which assertion he is nodding in response to. "Resist" is written large against the little word "or"; I suspect that I shall be told that it is not necessary and I shall not spend too much time on it. Whether or not the "or" appears, I should like


some clarification from Ministers about what clause 22(1)(a) means and what circumstances will be dealt with by the concurrent functions described in it.
As there is an "or" between paragraphs (b) and (c), I thought that perhaps there should be an "or" between paragraphs (a) and (b). Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will tell me that (b) and (c) are slightly different from (a) because (a) mentions "provide", whereas (b) and (c) start with the word "direct", so it is not necessary to have an "or". Subsection (1) is clearly complicated.
Amendment No. 145 seeks to leave out paragraph (c). I notice that my right hon. Friend has also tabled some amendments to paragraph (c). I do not know whether they tend to ameliorate the rather harsh effect on Ministers of paragraph (c), but clearly people have had second thoughts about the heavy-handedness of the paragraph as drafted.
May we be given some examples of the functions that will apparently be exercisable now only by Ministers and, if and when the Bill becomes law, with the concurrence or—if my right hon. Friend's amendment is accepted—with the agreement of the assembly? Before we consider the subsection may we be told what sort of functions are we talking about?
The next question that I have for my right hon. Friend involves a subject that may come up again under the next set of amendments. Paragraph (c) contains the words "in relation to Wales"; those words cause me—and perhaps nobody else—some difficulty. I do not do crosswords, but people who do tell me that they often have a certain empathy with the person who has drawn them up; after a certain time, the person drawing up the crossword for a particular newspaper is changed and the empathy disappears. I do not know whether it is recovered.
I do not say this as a criticism of the draftsman, but I find it difficult to empathise with him. Clearly, I was wrong about clause 21. My right hon. Friend made it clear that clause 21 was a sort of declaratory clause. I now find myself having difficulty with the words "in relation to Wales". I should have thought that, with the exception of a few subsidiary matters, the only Minister of the Crown who carries out functions exercisable in relation to Wales is the Secretary of State for Wales. Perhaps that proposition is wrong. I thought that the Bill related mainly to the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales, which will be transferred to the assembly; there will also be a block grant.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Might not Ministers of the Crown such as Ministers in the Home Office exercise powers in relation to Wales? Would that not answer the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making?

Mr. Davies: They might well or might well not, but our amendment stands, so let us not pursue that too far. I should not have thought that United Kingdom Ministers exercised functions in general—although there may be aspects in which they do so—in relation to Wales, just as they do not exercise functions in relation to England and Scotland. Indeed, there is no such thing as Wales, really. Before the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) jumps up, I shall say, to keep him happy, that there is no such thing as England either, because there is only the United Kingdom, and Ministers exercise functions in relation to the United Kingdom.
It may be that the parts make up the whole and that, if one exercises functions in relation to the whole, one must exercise functions in relation to the parts. I do not go along with that—but then I do not have the empathy with the draftsman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State obviously does. He will tell me that I am wrong—that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs exercises functions in relation to Wales, as does the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well maybe, but perhaps as we develop these arguments we can return to the strange phrase that has been used. Why is the phrase necessary? Why not just say, functions
exercisable by a Minister of the Crown
and drop the words "in relation to Wales"? I am sure that I am wrong because I do not have the empathy with the draftsman that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon obviously has, in view of the empathy that he has with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, I should be grateful to my right hon. Friend if he would try to explain that phrase to me.
Amendment No. 147 relates to clause 23, which is entitled, "Transfers: supplementary". I find clause 23(1)(b) incomprehensible—I am sure that it is my fault. It reads:
if an Order in Council under that section directs that the function shall be exercisable by the Assembly concurrently with the Minister of the Crown by whom it is exercisable"—
so it will be exercisable concurrently—
the Order in Council may provide that it shall be exercisable by the Assembly free from that requirement.
Are we therefore envisaging two orders—one that says that it shall be exercised concurrently and a subsequent one that says that it shall be exercised free from that requirement? I am sure that there is a clear, precise explanation and I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if he will kindly provide me with examples.
Amendment No. 152 is a probing amendment. The first amendment in the group leads to the others. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would clear up some of my difficulties.

Mr. Wigley: I shall speak to amendment No. 244, which was tabled by me and my hon. Friends. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) did not get involved with that amendment, for the simple reason that it deals with European aspects of the assembly—a subject which is very close to the right hon. Gentleman's heart.
The amendment refers to clause 23(4)(b):
dealing with matters arising out of or related to any such obligation or rights or the operation of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972.
The amendment is a probing amendment to ascertain what rights the Government have in mind and whether in some areas there might be a clash between the wishes of the assembly and those of the Minister who is responsible for the implementation of section 2(1) of the 1972 Act.
Obviously, there will be areas of common interest. In a host of areas, such as agriculture, some treaty obligations and other obligations will be exercised in Wales by the assembly. If the Minister has a reserved power regarding implementation of the 1972 Act, might conflict arise in such areas? Amendment No. 244 is merely a probing amendment to obtain clarification.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As I understand it, the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) would prevent the Minister by Order in Council granting the assembly a veto over powers for which he might have responsibility. That seems to be the nub of it. The complication arises from the danger of confusion about the meaning of clause 23, because of the problem that the right hon. Gentleman highlighted: apart from the rather vague limitation "in relation to Wales" to which he referred, there is little constraint on the functions that can be handed over by Order in Council.
Our most fundamental concern about the Bill is that, apart from the preliminary order that grants powers to the assembly before the first ordinary election, as set out in subsection (2), schedule 2 applies no restraints on the functions that can be handed over.
In principle, we are sympathetic to the objective of the three amendments, and to the right hon. Gentleman sticking his oar into the Bill, which he does with great dexterity. Our concern is that clause 23 is too wide in its potential. Deleting the first part of the clause would considerably reduce the scope for Ministers to transfer powers over which they might subsequently require independent jurisdiction.
The most interesting question that the right hon. Gentleman asked was about the functions. Anyone reading the Bill is struck by the fact that the word "any" regularly appears before the word "function". The unlimited and undefined nature of the transfer of functions is the primary concern. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could give examples of the functions he envisages, which he is incapable of defining in the Bill. If those functions were defined in the Bill, it would considerably reduce the scope for misunderstanding and dispute between Westminster and the Welsh assembly later.
I am happy to comment on amendment No. 244 tabled by Plaid Cymru—[Laughter.]—which underlines the longer-term agenda of the Welsh nationalists. They envisage the Welsh assembly becoming increasingly involved with the exercise of responsibilities that are necessarily the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, because the UK Government, not the Welsh assembly, are the signatory to the European treaties.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman is planning to speak on the Scotland Bill, may I warn him about the correct pronunciation of the name of the Dundee football ground—Tannadice?

Mr. Jenkin: I promise not to tease hon. Members about their Welsh or Scottish accents, if I am not teased for my English accent. That would be a sensible United Kingdom truce.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is proposed to delete paragraph (c) of clause 22(1). The subsection takes up the relationship between Ministers and the assembly in future. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the paragraph reads that by Order in Council Her Majesty may
direct that any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales shall be exercisable by the Minister only with the concurrence of or subject to the consent or approval of, or after consultation with, the assembly.

That is what all the concordats were supposed to illuminate. Will they illuminate the way in which the relationship will work? It seems that there will be a relationship between Ministers of the Crown and the assembly, but we do not quite know on what basis that relationship will be founded. I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will advise us further.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked about the meaning of clause (22)(1)(c), and raised an interesting question about concordats. We are talking about the powers that will be transferred to the assembly by order of the House of Commons. They will be powers that are given to the assembly. The concordats will differ from Department to Department, but they will set out in great detail how the assembly and the Whitehall Department will act on matters where they have a joint statutory responsibility, and on other matters where it will be necessary to have a working relationship.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) asked about the use of "any". I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's questions before dealing with the matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). The problem is that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to devolution, and does not like the way in which the Bill has been constructed. Of course the Bill provides for a substantial devolution of power to the Welsh assembly. I do not want—it is not the Government's intention at this stage—to try to circumscribe the extent to which powers may be transferred by orders from Ministers to the assembly. The hon. Gentleman may not like that, but that is the answer to his question.
The hon. Gentleman claims that the Government are incapable of defining the powers that we are considering. That is not the position. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman does not like the way in which the Bill is constructed. He knows that there will be a transfer order, which will spell out in full detail, in about 12 or 15 months' time, the powers that will be transferred by means of the main transfer order. It is the Government's intention—I have argued this ever since I became responsible for the Bill—that there will be an opportunity in future, if the Government wish, to use such powers to transfer further functions to the assembly.
That is the purpose behind the Bill. We are constructing a new democratic settlement, and the Welsh assembly will have considerable powers devolved to it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not like that, but that is the explanation that is relevant to his questions.
I move on to amendments Nos. 152 and 145, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. The purpose behind them is to prevent a transfer order under clause 22 that provides for Ministers to exercise functions in respect of Wales, subject to the agreement of, or following consultation with, the assembly.
My right hon. Friend asked what is meant by the expression "in relation to Wales". As the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, the words mean what they say. I am not the only Minister who exercises functions "in relation to Wales". My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary exercises functions with respect, for example, to the police, the fire service and the


Prison Service. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor exercises functions with respect to the court system in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is responsible for the operation of the social security system throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales. Those are a few examples.
Clause 23(6) provides that certain functions that extend beyond Wales may nevertheless be regarded as exercisable "in relation to Wales". We shall debate that provision more fully when we come to amendment No. 233 on clause 23.
Government amendments Nos. 136 to 139 are technical, and are designed to improve the clarity of the Bill. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli for his observations about the clarity of the Bill, and the obvious empathy that I have with the parliamentary draftsmen. The amendments clarify the purpose of the Bill, and bring it into line with drafting in the Scotland Bill.
Clauses 22 and 23 use four times the expression "concurrence, consent or approval", which are three ways of saying the same thing. That is why the amendments substitute the word "agreement", which is the term used in clause 59 of the Scotland Bill.
The other benefit of the Government amendments is that, by replacing the word "concurrence" with "agreement" in clause 22(1)(c), we avoid any possibility of confusion with the word "concurrently", which has an entirely different meaning, in clause 22(1)(b).
For the benefit of the Committee, I should explain that a concurrent function is one that two or more people may exercise. An example that we have identified in the draft transfer order—a question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli raised—is section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965, which is a power to fund scientific research. Such a power needs to remain concurrent, because, as now, the United Kingdom Government would fund scientific research projects that affect all parts of the United Kingdom. The assembly needs to be able to use that power, too, so far as it relates to Wales, which is why we are considering making it a function that is exercisable concurrently.
A function that is exercised subject to a person's concurrence is very different, because that person has to give his agreement before the function can be exercised either generally or in a particular way.
On amendments No. 152 and the other amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, I am grateful to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for seeking to explore this matter by means of a gently probing amendment. I will, of course, try to give an explanation that is acceptable to them of clause 22(1)(c) and clause 23(1).

Mr. Dalyell: Both my right hon. Friend and I have an interest in agricultural research and agricultural matters. Will he clarify—I genuinely do not know the answer to this—who makes a decision in this concurrence in relation to research if there is a disagreement between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Davies: It depends on whether the power is being exercised concurrently—in other words, jointly between the assembly and the Minister of Agriculture—or the powers have been devolved in full to the assembly or

retained by the Ministry of Agriculture. If the powers have been retained by the Minister of Agriculture, there will be no need to seek agreement. If the powers have been devolved to the assembly, there will be no need to seek agreement, because the powers are split.
It is the Government's desire to ensure as far as possible that power, and therefore accountability, rests one or the other. If, however, powers are exercised concurrently, agreement will have to be sought between the Minister and the assembly, and that is the purpose of the concordats, which will then be necessary, to decide precisely how those powers can be exercised jointly. It is preferable, and therefore it is the Government's desire, to avoid as far as possible the concurrent exercise of powers.
On amendments Nos. 152 and 145, I regret that, in one respect, my right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced this debate a little too early. I say that because the Government's discussions on the transfer order have not reached a point where I can give a concrete example—although I shall try to give illustrations—of how the power in clause 22(1)(c) would be used. I expect, however, that the final version transfer order will identify a number of examples where Ministers will continue to exercise functions with respect to Wales but under a requirement to obtain first the agreement of, or to consult, the assembly.
Clause 23(1) was promised in part by paragraph D.16 of the White Paper, on which we all fought such a hard campaign to get the consent of people of Wales, which says:
Various Acts of Parliament require the Secretary of State … to obtain the Treasury's consent before
he
may take certain actions. The Bill will make provision to remove most legal requirements for the assembly itself to obtain the Treasury's consent.
Subsection (1) gives effect to that White Paper commitment, although it casts the net wider and covers any ministerial consent or consultation mechanism. However, it gives flexibility to the transfer order to preserve requirements for consent or consultation where appropriate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon and the hon. Member for North Essex pressed me to give examples. I stress that the fine detail of the provision can be given only once we have the final draft of the transfer order.
May I give the following example? The assembly will appoint and fund the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997. Section 5(6) provides for me to determine board members' travel and other allowances with the Treasury's approval. We intend that that power should pass to the assembly, as the cost of those decisions would in future fall to the assembly. There is therefore no case for a Department in Whitehall to have a right of veto. The assembly should take that decision, because it will face the consequences.
Conversely, section 18(1)(b) provides for me to direct the form of the board's accounts with the Treasury's approval. To ensure consistency of approach to the accounts of public bodies, the Government are considering retaining the requirement for the assembly to obtain the Treasury's approval of accounts, if it so wishes. I hope that that explanation will persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends not to press their amendment to a vote.
Amendment No. 24, tabled by Plaid Cymru, requires a Minister of the Crown to consult the assembly before using any of the concurrent powers to implement Community obligations in Wales. Where the assembly has the power to implement such obligations, I expect that the normal position would be for it to take the necessary action. In that sense, the amendment is perfectly reasonable. Clause 106 confirms that
A Community obligation of the United Kingdom is also an obligation of the Assembly … to the extent that the obligation could be implemented … by the Assembly".
Some of those matters will be the assembly's responsibility, while others, perhaps concurrently, will be the UK Department's responsibility.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Secretary of State gave an interesting example concerning midwives' allowances, and said that previously the responsibility was shared concurrently between the Welsh Office and the Treasury. He said that, in future, it would be the sole responsibility of the assembly, because the cost would fall to it. Is that correct? Would there not be a knock-on effect, because expenditure granted by the assembly in that context would ultimately fall to UK taxpayers generally? Why should the Treasury's approval no longer be needed? I may have misunderstood the position, but I should be grateful for clarification.

Mr. Davies: I say as gently as I can that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The position is as I stated: the expenditure will come from the block grant, and it will be for the assembly to decide its spending priorities. If it wishes to increase allowances in a particular area, it must find the resources from the funds allocated to it. I have consistently made that position clear.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Davies: I have already dealt with that point. May I finish dealing with amendment No. 244 and the points raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon? If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene subsequently, that would be a more orderly way of proceeding. I try to accommodate the hon. Gentleman as far as possible.
As I was saying, amendment No. 244 is reasonable. I accept that, to ensure that the assembly knows whether it is to act or whether a Minister of the Crown is to do so in its place, the Minister should at least inform the assembly of that. The question we must decide—the question that the amendment teases out—is whether it should be a statutory requirement or should be a matter of good administrative practice. That takes us back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I am sure that Ministers would want to consult before using such powers on behalf of the assembly.

Mr. Wigley: I accept that the wording of amendment No. 244 may be a little too wide, as it would apply not only to matters over which the assembly has powers but to matters over which the Minister alone has powers. We

would need to curtail the wording of the amendment if it is to apply solely to matters over which the assembly has powers.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, in dealing with relevant matters, such as agriculture, which arise from areas where the assembly has powers and where a Minister may implement Community obligations under subsection (4)(a), consultation should take place by statutory requirement? For example, if a Conservative Government were in power in Westminster and a non-Conservative Government were in power in Cardiff, the Minister in London might proceed without carrying the assembly with him or her, which could lead to a clash.

Mr. Davies: I concede that there will have to be a mechanism whereby the Minister responsible discusses the matter with the assembly, so that it knows whether it will be dealt with by the assembly or by the Minister. The question is whether it should be a statutory obligation. I have looked closely at the wording of the amendment, and I see a lot of merit in the idea behind it. However, I wish to reflect further on the matter, because it raises an interesting point. It is relevant to the Scotland Bill, so I must discuss it with my ministerial colleagues.
I cannot give an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will table an amendment on this matter, but I hope that my response shows that we agree on the outcome, if not on the best way of achieving that outcome.

Mr. Jenkin: Further to the Secretary of State's example about nursing and midwifery, will he tell us whether, on the same basis, the Welsh assembly will be responsible for deciding what allowances and expenses local authority councillors should have? Would that be separate from any reference to Treasury Ministers?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has researched this matter carefully, that it is not my responsibility to act by means of secondary legislation. At least no scheme is currently in place. It is for local authorities to decide on that matter. I understand, however, that there is a residual power, which has never been used by Secretaries of State.
I remember pressing one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is a friend of the hon. Gentleman, on this matter. Anecdotal evidence showed that the schemes were being abused, and I asked him to exercise his power to ensure that there was no abuse. I assert uncharitably that he decided, for party political purposes, to allow the abuses to continue, so that he could use them as a stick with which to beat the Labour party.
It is a residual power. If the transfer order transfers responsibility to the assembly, it will then be for the assembly to decide whether to use that power. If it decides to impose a scheme, the cost of that scheme will be met by local authorities, as happens now. If the assembly decides that, further to an all-embracing national scheme, it will lay down certain limits, it may decide of its own volition to give local authorities additional resources. It will then have to find those resources from within the block.
It is clearly a matter of principle that, if the assembly takes any decision on expenditure, it will have to accept the consequences. There is no question, and there never


has been, of the assembly taking decisions on matters with which it is empowered to deal, and then handing on the bill to another Department or to the Exchequer, without prior agreement. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Davies: We are now going wide of the amendment. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was not present at previous debates. The Opposition did not table any amendments that would have enabled us to have the interesting debate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to snare me into, and we had no time to discuss this matter.
I hope that I have given an adequate explanation of the issues. When pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, I gave the example of midwifery.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps I missed it, because it is a small word, but I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend dealt with the "or" in subsection (1). He did not tell me why he will not accept my amendment.

Mr. Davies: I think I did, so my right hon. Friend must have missed it. Amendments Nos. 152 and 145 would prevent the transfer order under clause 22, which provides for Ministers to exercise functions with respect to Wales subject to the agreement of, or following consultation with, the assembly. For the reasons that I have outlined, I shall resist that amendment. Some functions will continue to be exercisable by Ministers.
I can give my right hon. Friend another example that will make the matter even clearer. I have to say that, until the transfer order is written, these examples are hypothetical. However, let me see whether I can help. My right hon. Friend should look at section 29 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.

Mr. Jenkin: I do not have it with me.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has time to rush out and get a copy if he feels desperately deprived.
Section 29 of the 1993 Act gives the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport the power to alter the shares of the national lottery distribution fund paid to the Arts Council of Wales and the Sports Council for Wales. That power will not be transferred to the assembly, as it does not currently rest with the Secretary of State for Wales. However, the assembly will be responsible for those two bodies, so it will have a direct interest in the exercise of the ministerial functions under section 29. It is perfectly sensible for those powers to be exercised by the Whitehall Minister following consultation with the assembly.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for his explanation. The legislation is not easy to explain, and I fully understand that he must cater for many eventualities. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has done better than I have, which is not surprising. I am pleased that the concurrence between the Treasury and Plaid Cymru is still holding, even in this post-referendum period. I congratulate him on getting at least half a promise from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ron Davies: The important concurrence is that which existed between my right hon. Friend and me when

we fought the general election on a clear manifesto. We produced a White Paper in pursuance of our manifesto commitment, and we fought the referendum on our party's policy. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon gave us passing assistance during the referendum, but he fought against us tooth and nail in the general election, whereas my right hon. Friend and I stood side by side and shoulder to shoulder to ensure that this matter was included in our manifesto and that a Labour Government pledged to implement that commitment was elected.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I did not intend to ruffle my right hon. Friend, so I shall not pursue this matter.
I understand why my right hon. Friend was unable to give examples in relation to clause 23(1)(b). He said that the Government will eventually decide what areas are to be covered by clause 22(1)(c), and I accept that. Parliamentary draftsmen must have been given certain examples: otherwise, despite their brilliance, they would not have been able to come up with subsection (1)(c). Instructions to parliamentary counsel must have specified the areas being considered: a general subsection was then drafted. Of course I accept what my right hon. Friend said.
I am not happy with the words "in relation to Wales" in clause 22(1)(c). My right hon. Friend said that the Home Secretary has functions in relation to Wales because he looks after prisons and there are prisons in Wales: perhaps I am expanding what he said a little. I shall let that go for the time being. He also said that the Lord Chancellor has powers and functions in relation to Wales because there are courts in Wales. The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the administration of justice in England and in Wales in general. Does it follow that he exercises those functions in relation to Wales separately?
My right hon. Friend was on more difficult ground when he referred to social security. He shifted his language.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Lord Chancellor is responsible for justice—my right hon. Friend knows that better than I—but he is also responsible for the administration of the law, such as the distribution of courts. Those administrative matters are separate from the broader responsibility that the Lord Chancellor has for justice.

Mr. Denzil Davies: All right, let us leave justice out of it for the time being: it is a difficult concept at the best of times.
My right hon. Friend did not say that the Secretary of State for Social Security is responsible for social security offices in Wales. He said that her functions include Wales, which is not what he said previously. Leaving aside the Secretary of State's responsibility for offices, buildings and gutterings, does she exercise functions in relation to Wales or in relation to Britain? I am not sure what the position is in relation to Northern Ireland. Merely because Wales is part of Britain, does it follow that the Secretary of State exercises functions in relation to Wales?

Mr. Wigley: It is logical.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I have been in the House a long time, and I have not always been impressed by Plaid


Cymru's logic, so perhaps we should leave logic out of it. Does the Secretary of State for Social Security exercise functions in relation to Wales or in relation to England?

Mr. Ron Davies: I have a note of my comments, which may help me to reach agreement with my right hon. Friend on what I actually said. I said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is responsible for the operation of the social security system throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales. The Secretary of State is responsible for the devolved administration within the social security system, and for the wider responsibilities throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend said "throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales", which is not the same as "in relation to Wales." I do not want to pursue this point, but that does not seem the same: otherwise, he would have said that the Secretary of State for Social Security exercises functions in relation to Wales.

Mr. Wigley: Surely there are functions that may be undertaken by United Kingdom Ministers—the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, for instance, has responsibility for broadcasting—involving specific responsibilities that relate to Wales, although the Minister concerned has a United Kingdom brief. Responsibility for S4C is an example. Similarly, in other subject areas the United Kingdom can decide that the United Kingdom Minister's powers may be exercised in Wales, in a slightly different manner.

5 pm

Mr. Denzil Davies: There may be specific functions as well as general functions, but I am concerned with the general functions. I understand that specific functions may be transferred to the assembly, but I understand the argument to be that the general functions of the Secretary of State for Social Security can be transferred to the Welsh assembly because the Secretary of State for Social Security exercises general functions in relation to Wales, and therefore falls within the legislation. I find it difficult to empathise with the draftsmen; I shall leave it at that.
Let me return to the word "or". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State bracketed amendment No. 152 with amendment No. 147, and said that, if the two were put together, terrible problems would be caused; but I will allow amendment No. 152 to stand on its own. I cannot imagine that inserting the word "or" at the end of line 41 will destroy the whole basis of the Welsh assembly. There is an "or" between paragraphs (b) and (c); why should there not be one between paragraphs (a) and (b)? I did not follow what my right hon. Friend was saying, but no doubt we shall have a chance to read what was said in Hansard, and I am grateful to him for trying to clarify what are difficult issues.
I said at the outset that mine was a probing amendment. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in page 12, line 41, at end insert
'save and except for any functions in the field of social security or home affairs'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 162, in schedule 2, page 73, line 17, at end insert—
'A1. Administration of justice and the courts system.'.
No. 165, in page 73, line 19, at end insert—
'2A. Children's issues and rights.'.
No. 157, in page 73, line 20, at end insert—
'3A. Disablement policy.'.
No. 163, in page 73, line 23, at end insert—
'6A. Fire service.'.
No. 161, in page 73, line 28, at end insert—
'11 A. Policing, prisons and probation services.'.

Mr. Rowlands: Amendment No. 144 seeks to clarify and develop the argument that began on Wednesday about the way in which functions are transferred to the assembly, particularly functions that lie with certain Ministers. The amendment does not suggest that functions should not be transferred; it seeks to ensure that home affairs and social security functions are transferred only by means of an Act of Parliament. It does not concern itself with the merits of future transfers in relation to specific Departments and ministerial responsibilities, but suggests that a one-and-a-half hour debate on an order providing for the transfer of the functions exercised by the Secretaries of State for Social Security and for the Home Department is not sufficient.
Other amendments deal with the respective merits of the transfer of various functions, and no doubt we shall discuss those merits later. The simple but important point of our amendments is that responsibility for key areas of major policy involving two major Departments should not be transferred by means of a transfer order.
Commenting on the previous debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly drew our attention to the White Paper commitments. Those commitments, made to the electorate during the referendum campaign, scrupulously and fairly described the powers for whose transfer the Government sought the Welsh people's consent. It is right and proper that those functions and responsibilities should be transferred by means of an order of the kind envisaged in clause 22.
I am not saying—I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee agree with me—that there should not be argument and discussion about some aspects of the proposal. I hope that Ministers will not try to stifle every debate on every aspect of the transfer of powers by saying, "This was in the White Paper, and it therefore cannot be questioned." I am preparing the ground for later amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and myself in relation to one or two functions which, I admit, were included in the White Paper, but about whose transfer we have doubts or reservations.
Even opponents of devolution should not argue that certain functions cannot be sensibly devolved to the assembly once it is up and running although they were


not included in the White Paper. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for us to have a legislative route for further transfers of existing ministerial responsibilities—legislative responsibilities—at some future date. The bone of contention is which route should be taken in relation to the transfer of certain powers and responsibilities. We became involved in a serious discussion about that on Wednesday, and, inevitably, I want to return to it.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I understand the logic of my hon. Friend's argument about the two Departments that he has specified, which can be seen in a more British context than those with, in many senses, narrower responsibilities; but why did he not include defence and foreign affairs?

Mr. Rowlands: The White Paper was very explicit about defence and foreign affairs. It said that the Government did not seek in any way to transfer those functions. I understand from our debate on Wednesday, however, that—although we have identified those two areas of domestic social policy—if the Bill remains unamended, it will be possible to transfer by order even the areas of policy to which my hon. Friend has referred. The amendment—which, incidentally, was tabled before Wednesday's debate—identifies areas of policy about whose possible transfer there is likely to be a certain amount of discussion. The amendment is of a selective nature, but my hon. Friend has raised an interesting issue which needs to be probed.

Mr. Rogers: Again, I understand my hon. Friend's logic. Surely, however, in relation to such tremendously important matters as defence, foreign affairs and home affairs, it would have been much better to include a clause excluding certain functions—as limited, or de-limited, in the White Paper—than to amend the nature of the Orders in Council that may be made.

Mr. Rowlands: That is an interesting suggestion, which my hon. Friend may wish to pursue by tabling an amendment.
Our amendments suggest that the two specific functions involved should be transferred not by order, but by legislation. The argument is not necessarily that some areas should not be transferred; the aim is to provide a safeguard, and to ensure that the transfer process is subject to more scrutiny and debate than is possible in a one-and-a-half hour debate on an unamendable statutory instrument.
My hon. Friend might make a valuable contribution to our discussion after I have drawn his attention to the exchanges in Committee on Wednesday. We are trying to define the routes by which some functional transfers should take place. I suggest that the transfer of major functions from at least two major Departments should be effected by Acts of Parliament rather than by orders.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's argument. May I ask—not in a pejorative way—whether he is trying to rework the argument in terms of exploring the alternatives in clause 21 or is he saying that matters relating to areas such as social security are unsuitable for any form of devolution? Is he concerned about the process or the policy?

Mr. Rowlands: I have made it clear that I am speaking about the process. Hon. Members have described clause

21 as declaratory in that it states that future Acts will transfer functions to the assembly. Clause 22 states that functions—the clause does not limit them—can be transferred by any Minister by a transfer of function order. As I said in an intervention to which I shall shortly refer, some major functions ought to be subject to more than a one-and-a-half-hour debate on a transfer order. If my amendment is accepted, a future Government would have to transfer such functions by an Act, and that is the route that I prefer.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am interested in my hon. Friend's last sentence because it made me unsure of his argument. I thought he said that any home affairs or social security function should be transferred to the assembly not by an Order in Council, but by primary legislation. He seemed to rephrase that by saying that if all social security and home affairs functions for Wales were to be transferred to the assembly, as in the Scottish case, that would have to be done by primary legislation. I agree with that, but surely the issue is how restrictive we should be. There are many borderline, minor social security issues, such as who commissions continuing care for the elderly and whether it should be the Department of Social Security as in the past or the social services departments of local authorities. We are debating minor changes. The same could be true of the probation service, which is also a joint funded, co-responsibility area involving local government. I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend about being so restrictive.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend's intervention, which I followed closely, is useful and important. We are trying to find and define a route for the transfer of functions. I suggest that it should be partly dictated by the importance of the function. My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that some minor Department of Social Security and Home Office responsibilities of the kind that my hon. Friend describes could sensibly be transferred by order. An example is the transfer of responsibility for prisons from the Home Secretary to the assembly. I think that that is suggested in an amendment. Should that be done by a one-and-a-half-hour debate on an order or should we use major legislation?
It might be suggested that responsibility for social security benefits and payments should be transferred. That issue has been discussed in some areas. Should that be done by a transfer of functions order or should the Government of the day do it by primary legislation? I accept the critique of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) of my amendment and my explanation. Under the clause and on my reading of the Secretary of State's clarification of the matter on Wednesday, some functions from the Home Office and the Department of Social Security should not be transferred by a simple order. The absence of a definition of the functions that should be transferred and the choice of route is causing us concern.
I remind the Committee of an exchange on Wednesday. I said:
The notes on clauses say that some modest functions in future may be appropriately devolved by order. That implies that some modesty will attend the order-making power and that substantial transfers of power will be effected by Acts of Parliament. The transfer of prisons from the Home Office involves a fairly substantial power. Would that be done by order or by primary legislation?


Those issues were at the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been saying. He replied:
I cannot answer that question; we are not proposing it anyway.
5.15 pm
I did not suggest that my right hon. Friend was proposing the transfer of prisons. I was talking not only about the present Government, but about a future Government being given power through the Bill. My right hon. Friend continued:
a future Government might consider it. If so, I am sure that the Government of the day and Parliament would say, 'Hang on, you cannot do that by order: it is a substantial shift.'
But hang on! The clause does allow a future Government to make such a transfer by order. It does not say that an Act of Parliament is required, and that is the fundamental point of my amendment. We are saying that some responsibilities and functions of two major Departments should be transferred only by an Act of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said that such a transfer was provided for in the Bill and the Secretary of State replied:
Of course it is, but legislation must be acted on in the light of political common sense."—[Official Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1106–07.]
I would like to believe that, but such common sense does not always fully determine Government decisions. We are asking, "What does the legislation say and do we agree with it?" My fundamental point—I hope that I am not making a meal of it—is that some functions should be transferred by order while others should require Acts of Parliament. Major responsibilities relating to prisons and to social security should be transferred not by order, but by primary legislation.
Let us look at the way in which the Welsh Office has evolved. I went through all the orders transferring functions to the Welsh Office over the past 34 years. It was interesting to study the sensible, pragmatic and progressive transfer of power to a developing Department. One of the reasons for the success of the Welsh Office is that is grew progressively, absorbing each function and making it work before collecting the next one. That procedure was followed between 1964 and 1978. After a transfer order in April 1978, there was not another one until 29 January 1991. That is a huge gap and I was curious to discover the reason for it. The answer—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West takes a conspiratorial view.
Between 1978 and the solitary order on radioactive substances in 1991, the powers to be delegated to the Secretary of State for Wales were written into successive Acts. The Secretary of State collected responsibilities from other Departments over time. As new legislation was introduced, his responsibilities were written into it. I have not had an opportunity to look through the legislation from 1978 to 1991, but, during that time, the Secretary of State's responsibilities grew with each Act.
Until now, it has not been the wish of Parliament or Government to delegate serious additional major functions to the Secretary of State for Wales from other

Departments. Therefore, if the assembly is to grow and if it is to be given responsibility for those functions, that must be done through primary legislation, not by order.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman is raising an important question and I am following his argument. Is it not the case that the Acts that came into force between 1978 and 1991 used the term, "the Secretary of State", which can be interpreted in different ways in different parts of the United Kingdom? During the debates on those Acts, virtually no time—if any time at all—was spent on discussing the question of which Secretary of State would undertake the various responsibilities.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that in those debates, it would have been made very clear that any functions relating to Wales would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. Of course, we all understand that "Secretary of State" is an all-embracing term.
As I was saying, after 1978, the Secretary of State's responsibilities were written into each and every Act. Surely that is what will happen with the assembly. When new legislation is introduced, the Government of the day will state whether the responsibilities are to be exercised by the Secretary of State or by the assembly. I am concerned about functions and powers that already exist in other Departments and may be transferred to the assembly. We identified two such Departments in our amendment. After 34 years, there must be some powerful reasons why the functions have not been transferred previously. I do not want to go too far into the argument as I am sure that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will want to develop it when he speaks to his amendments.
Let us take, as an example, the transfer of prison functions to the Welsh Office. Any hon. Member with constituents who, sadly, have gone to prison knows how important an integrated Prison Service across Britain is to the welfare of prisoners. To be honest, I would not want my constituents to go to Welsh prisons because the best prisons are outside Wales. There has been a common-sense view that the Home Office should have responsibility for prisons and that it should run an integrated service across boundaries.
There is a strong case for the Home Office maintaining and retaining various home affairs functions, especially the management and operation of the Prison Service. It should remain an integrated service and its functions should not be transferred to the assembly. If a future Government wished to transfer those functions, it would be a major change in policy and should not be dealt with through a simple one-and-a-half-hour, unamendable order which could not be scrutinised and debated with the seriousness it deserved.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 162, 163 and 161. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will deal with the other Plaid Cymru amendments.
I want briefly to pick up the arguments made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) about the Prison Service. My experience, both as a solicitor before I was elected to the House and as a Member of Parliament, is the opposite of the hon. Gentleman's. He suggested that his constituents would be


better off in prisons outside Wales. I have received many letters from constituents and others in prison expressing regret about the fact that there is no prison in north Wales. That has often led to arguments with prison officers and others about the use of Welsh language material within the Prison Service.
I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I see no reason why the assembly should not have responsibility for the Prison Service, as referred to in amendment No. 161. The functions of the Prison Service have already been devolved to Scotland, so what is the problem with their being devolved to Wales? Indeed, other home affairs services have also been transferred to the Scottish Office and will become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. There is no reason why those services should not similarly be transferred to the assembly. The hon. Gentleman took the whole argument about social security, especially the social security budget, to an interesting level and we may need to discuss that. However, I see no reason why prison and fire services should not be transferred to the assembly.
I want to raise an issue about the magistrates courts service in Wales. I have always been mystified by the processes of the magistrates courts committee. It puts forward plans to rationalise—which means to close—local magistrates courts, but the county council or the unitary authority can ask for those plans to be referred to the Lord Chancellor's Department. The unitary authorities in Wales have some locus in these matters—in particular, they can lodge objections to the plans—but the Welsh Office has no responsibility at all. It would be logical—a word used by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—therefore for the Secretary of State and, ultimately, the assembly to determine such appeals. In the era of closures of magistrates courts, especially in rural areas where many responsibilities are covered by magistrates' clerks—where justice requires people to travel long distances to attend court either as witnesses or as defendants—the assembly should determine such issues. If the assembly has responsibility for those matters, the people of Wales will have the opportunity of deciding on the structure that we want for magistrates courts, for example, in Wales.
Let us widen the scope of the debate and include civil courts, county courts and high court offices in Wales. Plans are constantly proposed to rationalise, to close and to reduce the funding of those services. However, the national assembly should be responsible for examining proposals affecting those services. Furthermore, historically, those services were among the first to embrace the use of the Welsh language. One of the first pieces of legislation dealing with the Welsh language was the Welsh Courts Act 1942. It has always seemed rather odd to me that responsibility for court services has remained within the remit of the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor; there is no reason why they should not be transferred to the national assembly.
5.30 pm
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) mentioned the probation service. That service, too, should properly be transferred to the national assembly. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney hinted that transferring it to the assembly should be considered. Although I realise that we shall not be able to take him or other Labour Members with us all the way on all the

issues, he did say that the probation service might appropriately be dealt with by order rather than by primary legislation.
The Secretary of State will know that there has been considerable concern in Wales about fire service reorganisation and funding. Moreover, people working in the fire service are particularly concerned about the way in which those matters are being dealt with. The fire service is another matter which should be within the assembly's remit.
I suggest to Labour Members that those matters could be transferred by order. If that is accepted, the Bill could provide for that transfer, rather than waiting for future legislation. I appreciate that the Secretary of State might feel that proposals for such transfers were not in the White Paper, which was the basis on which the Government fought the referendum. However, I ask him to realise that those matters could be transferred to the Welsh assembly without too much difficulty and that, in a Welsh context, they would be better dealt with in Wales. I believe that he will be seriously thinking about those matters in this debate.

Mr. Rogers: Part of the problem is that many hon. Members agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that, on some important legislative issues, Orders in Council are not the appropriate vehicle, but that primary legislation should be used to deal with them. I must confess—my hon. Friend knows my position on devolution—that I do not think that the Bill or the White Paper proposals go far enough. So many other functions should go to the assembly, but doing so was never envisaged. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State is now in the difficult position of seeming to have to break faith with the people of Wales, who—on the basis of the White Paper proposals—gave him a majority.

Mr. Ron Davies: May I assure my hon. Friend that I am not breaking faith with anyone?

Mr. Rogers: I never said that the Secretary of State was breaking faith.

Mr. Davies: I am sorry, but that is what I understood my hon. Friend to say. We have a very clear party policy to which he and I subscribe. That policy was reflected in the White Paper proposals—which are faithfully reflected in the Bill.

Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State is not listening very carefully. If he were, he would have heard me say that the Secretary of State would not want to break faith with the people of Wales by altering the White Paper proposals. If he checks the record, I am sure that he will find that that is what I said.
In considering the specific issues, I have much sympathy for the argument that the assembly should deal with certain functions—although not perhaps with defence and foreign affairs. Although there might come a time when, for some particular reason, the assembly wanted to send a gunboat to Blaenau Gwent—perhaps to discipline the people in the hills—I cannot imagine that the people of Wales would want a separate defence force. However, I strongly believe in local policing.


Hon. Members who participated actively in the miners' strike, for example, and who actively supported our Welsh colleagues on the picket lines will remember the invasion of police from England and from other areas against—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: No, not in Wales.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) probably never went on a picket line, so I must forgive him.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is wrong.

Mr. Rogers: If my hon. Friend will not be rude and will allow me to finish my point, I shall graphically illustrate it for him. Perhaps he had some inside knowledge about what the police were doing. It is a pity that he did not pass that knowledge on to the National Union of Mineworkers; we would have found it very useful.

Mr. Morgan: What is my hon. Friend talking about?

Mr. Rogers: If my hon. Friend had information that English police were not used on Welsh picket lines—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the amendment. We cannot have a conversation on the Back Benches.

Mr. Rogers: Through you, Mr. Martin, I was attempting to argue that perhaps it would be a good thing if the amendments were to transfer the functions of policing and of control of the police to the Welsh assembly—in contrast to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. In attempting to pursue my argument—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rogers: I will in a minute.
In pursuing my argument, I mentioned that, in the miners' strike, English police were used on the picket lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West wants to contradict me. Let him do so. If he wants to look silly, it is up to him.

Mr. Morgan: No, I was not on any picket lines. However, I remember reading in the press that the chief constable of the South Wales police took a view that was very different from that of the chief constable of the Yorkshire police. He took the view that it would not be appropriate to bring in police from England to assist in whatever duties the police had to undertake in the South Wales police area. The situation might have been different in Gwent or in north Wales, but that was the policy of the South Wales police.

Mr. Rogers: As I said, perhaps my hon. Friend has an inside line on those matters. I remember very well—it is the example that I wanted to give—the Bedwas coking ovens picket line, which occurred in the Secretary of

State's constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—who was standing next to me—and I were told, in a very broad home counties accent, "We know about you Welsh bastard MPs". I did not mind, as I suppose that, back at the beginning of the century, my ancestors were called a lot of things by the Cardies who came in to join the then Glamorgan constabulary. However, the miners very much resented the intrusion of police who were brought in. Part of the reason for that resentment was that members of their own families were policemen who resented having to go on the picket line against the Welsh miners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will remember what happened in Merthyr vale. If there were not English police—and perhaps others—on those picket lines, I will eat my constable's helmet.
Some issues are peculiarly important to people in certain communities. Policing, for example, can be done effectively only with the consent of the community. The idea of a national police force is abhorrent to all hon. Members, and we should like the police to be under the control of effective police committees. As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) asked, why not give the Welsh assembly the power to organise police forces in Wales?
I realise that transferring many functions would entail a problem in transferring moneys, and that it would make a mess of the Barnett formula in determining the proportion of finance to be added to deal with different functions. I do not suppose that it would have been possible to prepare a Bill in this time which would have encompassed all the problems and difficulties involved in the transfer of powers. If we are to have devolution in Wales, it must be meaningful. That is why I have argued that the acts of transfer should be done positively by primary legislation. The whole idea that that will be done in a one-and-a-half-hour, unamendable debate by Order in Council is strange.
Something needs to be said about defence and foreign affairs because if this clause encompasses all Departments, there ought to be some limitation. We ought to be asking whether we believe in a British state per se—or even a state on a federal basis—or whether we believe in complete independence. That decision will have to be made as we progress. However, if changes are to be made, they should be made by primary legislation and not by Order in Council.

Mr. Wigley: I shall follow some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I agree with him about the importance of community in matters such as the police force. The community is what gives the police force its strength, and the absence of that dimension undermines what they are doing. There are areas where important co-ordination is necessary between the police force, local government and other functions—such as highways—which are to come under the assembly. There is a lot of sense in looking at that issue.
The hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned the Barnett formula, which refers to the increase, year-on-year, in available money. Provided that the money for the police is built into the basic block, there is no reason why the Barnett formula should not continue if we feel it to be appropriate in the generality.

Mr. Rogers: How would the right hon. Gentleman build that into the basic block? We had a problem with


policing in south Wales at one time, and hon. Members representing that area went to see Lord Ferrers—the Minister responsible for the police at the time—who said that the South Wales constabulary was a rural police force. He did not realise that the area contained a string of urban communities—it just happened that there were some bleak moorlands in between. Obviously, he had looked at a map but had not visited the area to study the problem.

Mr. Wigley: I well remember that incident, which makes the hon. Gentleman's point.
Amendment No. 165, which deals with children, and amendment No. 157, which deals with disability, may be probing amendments. Whereas the Home Office functions—which we are talking about transferring—clearly relate to other Departments, there is an overlap between a number of Departments of state with regard to children and to disability. We want to make it clear that responsibility lies with the assembly in a way that allows a specific approach—perhaps within a committee or sub-committee of the assembly—to deal with those matters.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way early in his remarks. He has referred to a fundamental point that we need to explore. The listing of the subjects that must be considered for transfer has no implication for the way in which that service area will be delivered by the assembly. The presence, or otherwise, of a description of "children's issues" would not require the assembly to have a committee to deal with it. The point to which he is referring is a substantive one—that those matters which, together, add up to children's issues will be transferred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is the Minister responsible for co-ordinating children's issues in the Welsh Office, and he pulls together matters relating to local government, health and social services, which are to be devolved. Those powers, which are currently vested with Welsh Office Ministers, will be transferred.

Mr. Wigley: I thank the Secretary of State for that clarification, which is helpful. Perhaps I can press the argument a little further to try to see the context within which the powers can be exercised by or within the assembly.
By way of background, it is worth mentioning the Welsh Office's successes over the years—under successive Administrations—with certain initiatives dealing with particular groups with special needs within Wales. One thinks of the initiative concerning people with learning difficulties, which was undertaken in the 1980s and 1990s. It carried with it people from all political parties, and it did a considerable amount of good in developing policies at a time when Wales probably had a more advanced set of policies on the needs of those with learning difficulties than not only the other parts of these islands, but the whole of Europe. I attended conferences where that was discussed.
Likewise, there have been initiatives with regard to those with mental illness and the elderly. There is a need for such an approach with regard to children. We should like to see within the assembly the development of a children's commissioner for Wales. I do not know

whether the terms of the assembly will allow that, but I imagine that they would—provided that the individual functions to come together within the assembly already exist, as has been suggested by the Secretary of State.
5.45 pm
If there were a children's and young person's commissioner for Wales to monitor the effectiveness of all services for children and young persons in Wales, to investigate specific complaints about those services and to report annually to the assembly, children's policies could be developed coherently. Likewise, in exercising the functions of the commissioner, it would be possible to specify the need to ensure that the rights and interests of children and young people were at all times taken into proper account by the service providers. We need co-ordination to make sure that this is focused on.
We must have regard to the principles laid down in the UN convention on the rights of the child; the need to ensure co-ordination between the voluntary and independent sectors—for example, in providing services for children—and statutory bodies; and the need to consult from time to time children and those seeking to promote their interests. That would bring together a package which—if the Secretary of State's response was correct—can be dealt with by the assembly, which has competence within those areas. That is useful, and it is worth putting that on the record as part of the Committee's debates.
The Secretary of State will be aware of my interest in disability legislation. I have looked carefully at some of the transfer orders that he has made with regard to disability legislation. It is proposed that some measures are to be transferred and some are not. I take it grievously to heart that the Disabled Persons Act 1981—of which I was lucky enough to be the sponsor—is not being transferred. That Act concerns the physical environment in Wales, town and country planning, building regulations and other matters that I thought would automatically have come within the remit of the assembly. The argument goes beyond the question whether the net has taken in all the legislation that is needed to deal with disabled people within the general functions of the assembly, and I take it that social security is outwith that.
There is also the question of the approach to disability. For example, one of the vexed questions facing the world of disability—hon. Members from all parties have followed this—is the rights of disabled people, and the need to ensure that we have legislation that allows those rights to be pursued in the same way that the rights of women to equal opportunities and the rights of individuals in regard to racial discrimination can be pursued. The Secretary of State will know that that was a major argument during the last Parliament, and it has continued in this one. There was to be a measure on that matter, and perhaps the Department for Education and Employment is working on a change in the legislation.
A commission in Wales to look after the needs of disabled people, which disabled people could themselves drive, and to make sure that the rights that they should—and, to some extent, do—have in law are implemented would be a major power. I am not certain that it is within the ability of the assembly, as it is proposed, to pursue the rights of disabled people in that way. I have no doubt that organisations of and for disabled people in Wales are


committed to encouraging the assembly to move the agenda forward. If it were not possible to do so, they would be extremely disappointed. I hope that the Secretary of State will put our minds at rest and reassure us that those powers will rest with the assembly.

Ms Julie Morgan: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) tabled amendments Nos. 165 and 157, because they highlight important issues. We should take into account the effect on children and on disabled people of policies in every area that is covered by the assembly, as listed in schedule 2.
Children are affected by decisions not only in the traditional areas that we associate with them, such as health, social services and education, but in all the other policy areas that are listed for transfer, such as culture, economic development, sport, and town and country planning.
For example, we rarely take into account the needs of children—places to play, shopping developments with creches, and so forth—when planning towns. We know also that economic development, as it affects patterns of employment and flexible working hours, is important to parents and children.
The key point is to have a child care strategy to cover all the policy areas: whenever a policy is discussed in the assembly, the question of how it would affect children should automatically be asked. I welcome the thinking behind the amendments, and I hope that children's voices may also be heard directly in the assembly. For example, the abuse that has occurred in north Wales and the inquiries into children's homes in south Wales show how important it is for children to have that direct access, and be able to voice their concerns, to the assembly.
I welcome the attention that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon drew to policies on disability. Disabled people in Wales have fewer opportunities, are less likely to be employed and earn only about 67 per cent. of the average earnings of non-disabled people in the United Kingdom. They must have a clear voice and their needs must be high on the assembly's agenda. As with children, they should be a part of every policy area.
We shall need a strategy for disabled people, with targets for higher employment rates and better access to buildings, and a policy to ensure that they are employed in the assembly itself. I welcome the mention of strategies that have been successful in Wales and have captured people's imagination because they have directly involved disabled people and their carers, such as the strategy for people with learning disabilities.
A week ago, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), I attended the launch of the independent living scheme for Cardiff and the Vale. That was the first scheme in Wales in which community care grants were given to disabled people in the community to spend as and when they wanted on carers in their own homes. We want to develop such policies, giving disabled people direct control of the services that they need.
I welcome the spirit behind amendments Nos. 165 and 157, and I hope that children and disabled people will have a strong voice in the assembly and that all its policies will take their needs into account.

Mr. Jenkin: It is a mistake to suggest that if the assembly does not have responsibility for disability policy or children's issues, it will be pathologically determined to ride roughshod over them. Of course we hope that it will have regard to special interests, such as the disabled and children, as Parliament and local authorities do, but that does not require that the specific responsibilities be transferred to it.
We need a sensible cohesion between what happens at Westminster and Whitehall and what happens at national level in Wales. The proposals in the amendments could lead to nothing but disagreement and discord, which we want to avoid.
I want to talk mainly about the exchanges provoked by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who has done the Committee a great service, especially in his exchanges with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). We heard not an intemperate denunciation of the Bill but a level-headed discussion about why its powers should be drawn so wide and whether that is good for the assembly's prospects.
In response to what the Secretary of State said on the previous group of amendments, I must emphasise that many criticisms are made not simply to oppose the assembly but to consider whether the Bill can be improved. The Welsh people voted for the proposals in the White Paper, paragraph 1.7 of which said:
The Assembly will take over the responsibilities that the Secretary of State exercises in Wales.
Those responsibilities include home affairs, social security, defence and foreign affairs, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers); but those policy areas are not mentioned in the White Paper that was presented to the people of Wales.
Paragraph 1.9 of the White Paper says:
The Government does not propose to transfer to the Assembly responsibility for functions which currently operate on a common basis throughout the United Kingdom.
One could split hairs and say that home affairs are not run on a UK basis, but the intention, about the transfer of specific responsibilities, is clear.
Whether the Secretary of State was in a terrible rush and could not decide which functions he wanted to transfer, or whether there is an ulterior motive, we shall probably never know; we shall certainly never be able to tell from any of the utterances of which he is likely to give the Committee the benefit.
What we are left with is not a conspiracy or a betrayal of the Welsh people but an unholy mess. The Bill is sloppy, and people who read it will have no firm understanding of what it is intended to transfer or to leave on a UK basis. We are handing huge discretionary power to the Secretary of State to transfer responsibilities by order.

Mr. Ron Davies: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State cannot deny it, because he has said as much himself.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: Let me finish this point.
The real question is whether the Committee wants to give so much discretionary power to the Secretary of State. The current incumbent may be entirely determined to stick with the undertakings set out in the White Paper, but even he must have the humility to recognise that he will not be Secretary of State for ever and that someone much less wise and charming might one day occupy his shoes and sit behind his desk. Such a person may well seek to use a majority in Parliament to transfer powers whose transfer was never intended. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State describes the devolution project as a process rather than a settlement. It is not a settlement; we are creating lot of uncertainty about what the Welsh assembly should do. That is evident from the amendments tabled by the Welsh nationalists.

6 pm

Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. I sought to intervene on his statement that discretion to transfer such functions would rest with the Secretary of State. It will not; such discretion will always rest with the House of Commons. Ministers will have discretion to put proposals before the House, but, as I have often said, this House is sovereign and will decide whether powers are transferred.

Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State's vision of the United Kingdom Parliament in years to come is that we shall be treated like the French senate. We shall debate unamendable general principles that hand the Executive huge power on the basis, in this case, of 90 minutes' debate. As Labour Members have said, primary legislation should be used if major functions are to be transferred, but there is no limit on the number and scope of functions that could be transferred by order.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: What provision did the Conservative Government use to run Northern Ireland after Stormont was abolished? Was it not done by order?

Mr. Jenkin: Of course it was by order, and a highly unsatisfactory situation it is. I cannot remember even the Welsh nationalists arguing for the restoration of normal democratic legislative processes in Northern Ireland because of the exceptional circumstances there. I have always been told that the Welsh people do not like having parallels drawn with Northern Ireland, but the hon. Gentleman is putting Wales in the same position as Northern Ireland by doing all transfers by order without limit on their scope and nature.

Mr. Jones: I intervened because the hon. Gentleman was arguing that functions should not be transferred by order. I was merely pointing out that Tory Governments used such powers for nearly a quarter of a century. How can he say that that should have been the case in Northern Ireland but should not be in Wales?

Mr. Jenkin: The fact that the hon. Gentleman does not have the dexterity to understand that the situation in Northern Ireland has been exceptional for the past 25 years—all Opposition Members urgently want normality to resume in Northern Ireland so that we can restore proper democratic processes—explains why the nationalists are destined to remain a small party. Long may they remain so.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Leaving Northern Ireland aside, can the hon. Gentleman cite an

example of where a Secretary of State has persistently over-devolved power to a constitutionally established regional or national body and can he say whether it has been unsuccessful?

Mr. Jenkin: The Stormont Parliament might be a good example.
We should ask ourselves when the House has given powers to Ministers to move functions by order and they have recoiled from the use of that route and preferred primary legislation. That is what the Secretary of State is asking us to believe. We are being told not to worry, to trust that if an issue were of sufficient importance, the Secretary of State would use primary legislation rather than the order-making power. That is to put trust in the Executive and in politicians, which we, as politicians, should know better than to do.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I apologise for the state of my voice. I shall endeavour to make a short contribution. Amendment No. 144 deals with social security and home affairs. Social security is particularly difficult, while some home affairs issues, especially the siting of magistrates courts, should be administered within Wales. The closure of magistrates courts in my constituency has made access to the justice system difficult for many constituents.
We wish to support Plaid Cymru's amendments No. 165 on children's issues and No. 157 on disabilities. I declare an interest as president of Brecon and District dial-a-ride, which has 650 members and operates a service that covers some 84,000 miles a year. I have experienced at first hand how difficult it is to get sufficient back-up for support for disabilities. There are many advantages in transferring more aspects of disability policy to the assembly.
The fire service powers, which amendment No. 163 gives to the assembly, are clearly needed. Policing, and especially probation, powers should be transferred to the assembly, as proposed by amendment No. 161. The question of prisons is complex, but the issue of young persons in prison, particularly in Wales, has been campaigned on for a long time. There have been many injustices with young people going away from home into prison in England. That needs further sorting out. I support the amendments.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I shall try to sum up the debate, in which there has not been great disagreement. We agree that we need three grades of legislative change that require three different responses. I think that we agree that if it is clearly stated in the White Paper that something should be transferred, it is permissible that it should be done by Order in Council. At the far extreme, if a transfer is clearly negated by the White Paper, no future Government should be able to do it without another referendum. Taxation, or other principles that stretch the word "devolution" to its extreme, would require that. There is an area in the middle, with matters that might be described as having been hinted at in the White Paper or not clearly ruled out. The question is whether such matters could be transferred only by primary legislation. That is the grey area.
Is it possible to specify now the matters whose transfer would not require another referendum—because they are not negated by the White Paper—but could reasonably be


done by a future Parliament by Order in Council or primary legislation? Such transfers could be done later in this Parliament, but are more likely to be done by a future one. Such matters may not necessarily be much thought about now and may not have been much discussed in the referendum. That is the controversy. Should it be written into the Bill or left to the political judgment of the Government and Parliament of the day? Without a written constitution, we normally leave certain matters to the political judgment of the day. The general principle that has always guided the House is that we try never to commitment future Parliaments because it is a waste of time. It is a difficult issue.
For instance, we might say that a referendum would be required if one were to transfer to the National Assembly powers relating to taxation or, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), to defence or foreign policy. Should home affairs or social security matters be dealt with by Order in Council or through primary legislation? If one proposed to transfer all general responsibilities relating to home affairs or the Lord Chancellor's Department, it would be easy to see that such a decision would require primary legislation. That possibility is bound to come up for discussion in the future simply because it is the only major difference between the transfer of powers to Wales and to Scotland—as far as I know, it is the only difference relating to administrative devolution practice and the contents of the respective White Papers.
It is natural that people will compare the practice in Wales and that in Scotland. They may argue that the next natural step after the devolution exercise is to give the Welsh assembly equal powers to those available to the Scottish Parliament in relation to home affairs, prisons, the probation service and the Lord Chancellor's Department. That discussion is bound to take place simply because of the administrative contrast between Wales and Scotland, which exists for good historic reasons.
Should such a transfer of powers be a matter for primary legislation? I am sure that we would agree that the transfer of all functions relating to home affairs and the Lord Chancellor's Department requires primary legislation. However, it is necessary to ask whether certain areas of responsibility in relation to them or social security are so intimately connected with those functions that were discussed in the White Paper that to specify that any transfer would require primary legislation would impose an unreasonable restriction on a future Parliament. There are quite a few such areas because of cost shunting. I am not sure whether it is reasonable to deny a future Secretary of State the right to transfer such powers by Order in Council.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is quite an expert on most matters so perhaps he can tell us what is the position in relation to the revocation of Orders in Council. Perhaps that is why Conservative Members are looking so smug. Perhaps a future Conservative Secretary of State could revoke an Order in Council. I presume that that is possible, but I am not quite sure. Such an order would not be as binding as primary legislation.

Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, but I cannot possibly comment on that. My hon. Friend will have to make his

own speech about that during clause stand part, when he can come back and have another bite at that interesting and juicy cherry.
Police funding and funding of the fire service are covered by the rate support grant, and are therefore the responsibility of local government, but matters relating to training, standard setting and monitoring are the responsibility of the Home Office. Given that the funding is part of local government administration, it is difficult not to consider such a responsibility as a natural extension of the powers that were subject to a decision at the referendum. The transfer of powers relating to prisons would be an entirely different matter, because such a transfer was never discussed or hinted at during the referendum.
Perhaps it would be possible to transfer powers according to a three-way classification of functions. One could then decide that the transfer of relevant powers would require a referendum, primary legislation or an Order in Council. That would be a good move, provided that such a classification fitted with an unwritten constitution and the way in which we normally approach such decisions. After all, we never seek to bind a future Parliament. Such an attempt would be meaningless.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman reply to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). In the absence of the Conservative amendments that were voted down in our earlier proceedings, it is abundantly clear that, once an Order in Council is made, it can be reversed only by primary legislation.

Mr. Ron Davies: Or with the agreement of the assembly.

Mr. Letwin: Indeed. Such is the asymmetry that the legislation builds in.

Mr. Morgan: It is certainly true that the Bill will become an act of devolution. If Conservative Members are only just discovering that, it is a pity that they did not wake up to it earlier—if they had, they could have then played a greater role in the referendum. The purpose of an act of devolution is to devolve powers democratically to an elected body. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman should express great surprise that the purpose of it is to effect a transfer of powers in an orderly manner that provides for the most stable administrative system possible.

Mr. John Hayes: When we debated the matter earlier in our proceedings, one issue under discussion was not just the devolution of power from this place to the assembly, but the transfer of existing local government functions. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the funding of the fire service and the police, but local government has far more responsibilities for those matters than just their funding. Is he suggesting a massive transfer of power from local government to the assembly?

Mr. Morgan: Not at all. Functions relating to the police and fire service are the responsibility of two Secretaries of State, one because funding is provided by


him to local authorities through the rate support grant and the other because general responsibilities remain with the Home Secretary. Given that the Secretary of State for Wales already has some responsibility for the police and the fire service because he provides for their funding by local authorities through the rate support grant—those authorities are then precepted by the police and the fire service—it is clear that a further transfer of responsibilities relating to the fire service and the police could be regarded as an extension of a responsibility already discussed in the White Paper. I accept that any transfer of powers relating to prisons would be new.
We must search for a stable but flexible system in which three possible outcomes could be considered. A proposed transfer of powers could be regarded as a matter that required another referendum to be held; other categories of transfer might require primary legislation or merely an Order in Council. That classification would be clear to the people of Wales and to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The guidance offered by the House to successor bodies would be clear, even though we could not bind those bodies.
If a proposed transfer merely represented an extension of the transfers proposed in the White Paper or the Bill, the use of an Order in Council would be appropriate. If that transfer represented a complete change, there is no reason why it should not be covered by primary legislation, even though it is difficult to take into account the fact that the political environment may change over five to 10 years.
I am sure that we are all clear about the three classifications that could govern the possible extent of any future suggested transfer of functions compared with the transfers that have already been suggested in the White Paper and were discussed and fought over during the referendum campaign.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that things can change in five years. He said that the use of a referendum is one of the options when deciding the transfer of powers. As far as the House is concerned, referendums are consultative. Does he accept that the political scene will be different once the assembly is established, because it will articulate some of the wishes of the people of Wales? Surely its role should also be part of the equation.

Mr. Morgan: I do not seek to anticipate the political future that we may face in five or 10 years, once the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament have been in operation. That is the problem with an unwritten constitution—one cannot anticipate how political judgments might change. Perhaps, in five or 10 years, there will be a general consensus among the four political parties of Britain that responsibility for prisons should be transferred to the Welsh assembly. People may say, "That transfer does not matter a damn. Do it tomorrow by Order in Council, because everyone agrees with it." Without a written constitution, that could happen. It is a matter of theory, but one must take into account that the political mood can change.
Cost shunting is the most important issue not yet discussed. We must put on record now that it will sometimes be possible for major changes made by Parliament in primary legislation of a UK-wide type to

have massive consequences for the Welsh assembly. I am thinking about the care of the elderly or long-term care for those with disabilities. Let us imagine a scenario where the Department of Social Security lays additional burdens on local authorities by transferring to them all responsibility for funding long-term care for the elderly or for those with disabilities. What was previously done by the DSS will now have to be done by social services departments of local authorities, which will need a massive uplift in their rate support grant. If the responsibility were transferred, but there were no such uplift in the rate support grant, one can imagine the problems that would face the Welsh assembly.
That is not the only possible example—the police and fire services come to mind. Whereas prisons are clearly a Home Office responsibility, many of the alternatives to prison—crime prevention policies, alternative places and so on—which might form part of a policy to reduce the prison population, are the responsibility of local authorities. Somewhere, there has to be some sort of concordat covering such grey areas in respect of the possibility of cost shunting. The Welsh assembly will have responsibility for funding local authorities, which might have additional responsibilities laid on them by future Acts of Parliament.
There must be some way of handling situations in which there is no proposal to shift policy making from here to the Welsh assembly, but there is the likelihood of funding responsibilities being shifted to the Welsh assembly as the funding body for local authorities. We have to be clear about the implications of the various ways in which costs can be shunted either side of the devolved boundary, so we have to be sympathetic to the need sometimes to transfer functions in cases where we have, in effect, already transferred the costs of the responsibility for certain matters.

Mr. Ron Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will forgive me if I do not join him in speculating about what might happen in future. Instead, I shall concentrate on amendment No. 144, which was moved some time ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
Clause 22 provides for any ministerial function, in so far as it relates to Wales, to be transferred by order. I hope that there is clarity on that point. That could, of course, include any statutory functions to do with prisons or social security.

Mr. Jenkin: So there it is.

Mr. Davies: Yes, but I want to make the point absolutely clear. There would be nothing to prevent a Government from transferring such functions by primary legislation, rather than by a clause 22 order, if they so wished. It is for that purpose that clause 21, which now stands on the face of the Bill, provides for either of those options. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said that those alternative mechanisms exist and could be used, but it would not be productive for us to explore the


circumstances in which either provision would be used, because that would be a matter for the Government of the day.

Mr. Jenkin: Trust the Government.

Mr. Davies: I want to come to that point. It is a matter for the Government of the day to decide whether they wish to transfer powers to the assembly. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has argued on several occasions that Parliament is sovereign, and I hope that he acknowledges the theoretical possibility, if not the wisdom, of any future Government deciding that further powers should be devolved to the assembly. He must acknowledge that possibility, because he argues the case for the sovereignty of Parliament.
If that is the case, a Government who command a majority in the House could decide, as a matter of policy, that they wished to devolve further functions to the assembly, and they could seek to do that either by primary legislation, which, as we have made clear in clause 21, would require the assent of the House, or by using the mechanism in clause 22 and tabling an order, in which case the consent of the House would again be required. In either case, the Government of the day decide what their policy is, and then have to seek the necessary authority from the House. In clause 22, we have merely indicated the second of the options available to the Government.
There is little profit in our speculating now about which functions should be transferred and which process should be used to achieve that transfer at some point in the future. We do not know how policy will develop or how the pace of decentralisation will develop. We do not know what pressures will prevail in five or 10 years' time or what the policy imperatives or the demands of the people will be. There is no point in our spending time now trying to forecast what will happen in future; nor is there much point in the hon. Member for North Essex trying to curtail the process of devolution, which is what he is trying to achieve. He is trying to prevent the Government from embarking on this policy.
Let me make it clear, as I did when speaking to the previous group of amendments, that it is the Government's policy to have a substantial act of devolution. We want to devolve the powers that will be set down and made absolutely clear in the transfer order, but we want to have a mechanism that will allow the process of devolution to continue, and that is the purpose of clause 22. The hon. Member for North Essex should not jump up and down as though it is some great revelation that clause 22 allows for devolution to take place in future. I have made that absolutely clear for as long as I have been talking about devolution. I made it clear on Second Reading, and I have freely acknowledged in every debate in Committee so far, that devolution is a process, and that clause 22 provides a mechanism whereby, if they have the consent of the House, future Governments will be able to devolve to the assembly further powers that they consider would be best discharged by the assembly.

Mr. Jenkin: To argue that there should be limits on what the Secretary of State can recommend to be

transferred by order is not to argue against the devolution as set out in schedule 2. That is not the point at issue and we are not arguing against that devolution at this point; we are simply saying that there is no limit to what can be transferred.
The Secretary of State has not been able to reassure the Committee by saying that for the Government to choose the route of primary legislation is an option; the mere fact that it is only an option underlines the huge discretion that Ministers will have to recommend fast-track devolution to the House and force it through with their majority after only a one-and-a-half-hour debate. That is not an anti-devolution statement; it is simply to underline the massive discretion that we are transferring to Ministers to pursue further devolution by the fast-track process.

Mr. Davies: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to underline it, because I do not disguise the fact. I have said time and again that we are debating what will become a substantial act of devolution. The hon. Gentleman seeks to ensure that if at any time in the future the Government wish to devolve further powers to the assembly, they will have to come to the House with a piece of primary legislation. I am saying that there are many areas where it may well not be sensible or practical do to that—there may be no desire for certain matters to be brought before the House in a substantial piece of primary legislation. I have no doubt that there will be instances where the Government of the day and Parliament as a whole decide that it is perfectly sensible to devolve matters by means of order. If Parliament does not agree, the orders will not be passed. All Parliament has to do is say, "No, we do not approve it." The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the inescapable fact that there is a mechanism whereby Parliament can assert its right and prevent powers from being devolved.
Amendment No. 144 would exclude social security and home affairs functions from transfer to the assembly. At the moment, I have no social security functions, and the White Paper made it clear that such UK-wide functions would continue to be delivered on the current basis, by the unitary Government. The Government have no plans to transfer such functions to the assembly, so the amendment is unnecessary. [Laughter.] There is no point in the hon. Member for North Essex laughing. It is not the Government's intention, so the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has not participated in the debate, although I know that he has listened carefully. We are concluding a lengthy debate and I want to answer the points raised so far, rather than engage in new matters.

Mr. Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman has just been saying to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that there is a substantial act of devolution and that future Governments may wish to devolve further matters by order. Therefore, it is not an answer to earlier arguments to say, "The current Government have no plans to do so at present" in relation to social security matters. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that a future Government might decide on wholly new acts of


devolution by way of order. Does that not reiterate the point made in amendment No. 144, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), that certain categories such as social security and home affairs should be excluded? The Secretary of State's first answer does not fit with his second.

Mr. Davies: Yes, of course it does. I have made it clear that any ministerial function can be transferred. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is trying to choose two of the functions. If we were to do so, we would be on our way to saying that this Parliament should try to restrict the rights of a future Government or future Parliament to devolve a series of policy areas and functions. Any future Parliament could set aside that provision, so amendment No. 144 is unnecessary and would be troublesome.
A number of other amendments have been debated, some of which add to, and some of which detract from, the list in schedule 2. It may be helpful background when considering the amendments if I explain the purpose of the schedule—what it does and, more particularly, what it does not do. At least some of the amendments—this was the point that I was making to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—appear to be based on a misunderstanding of schedule 2.
The White Paper "A Voice for Wales" sets out the policy that the assembly should take over the responsibilities that I exercise in Wales. Paragraph 1.7 listed them briefly and stated that they would be listed in the Bill—that is the purpose of schedule 2. Annexe A of the White Paper sets out a more detailed version of that list. That part of the White Paper is put into effect in part II of the Bill, notably in clause 22, which provides the power for Her Majesty to transfer ministerial functions to the assembly by Order in Council.
Clause 22(2) places a duty on me to consider including in the initial transfer order appropriate functions that fall in each of the fields listed in schedule 2—it is only a duty to consider. I listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and I know that he wants to make similar arguments in subsequent debates. I can tell him that all that schedule 2 does is to place on me a responsibility to consider. The amendments that he will move will not do what he is trying to do, which is to place a duty on me or a power on the assembly; they would merely require me to consider those matters.

Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State referred to annexe A of the White Paper. He will be aware that, under the social services heading, the annexe refers to
policies for particularly vulnerable groups, including people with learning disability".
The question of disability has appeared in the White Paper, but, as far as I can see, it does not appear in the Bill.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman referred to specific points relating to the Disabled Persons Act 1981 which I want to deal with slightly later.
I first wish to deal with the general point about the effect of schedule 2. I made it clear that the White Paper is put into effect in part II of the Bill, particularly in clause

22, which provides power for Her Majesty to transfer ministerial functions to the assembly by Order in Council. Clause 22(2) places a duty on me to consider including in the initial transfer order appropriate functions that fall in each of the fields listed in schedule 2—nothing more. Without a provision such as clause 22(2), there would be nothing in the Bill to show the extent of the initial powers to be transferred to the assembly. In that sense, clause 22 and schedule 2 provide a mechanism which we have used to show the Committee the broad policy areas that we propose to devolve.
Clause 22 and schedule 2 taken together implement the policy that it is those functions now exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales—or virtually all of them—that should be included in the initial transfer order. At the same time, clauses 21 and 22 allow for subsequent transfer orders to be made—the point that I was discussing earlier with the hon. Member for North Essex—transferring additional functions to the assembly, which is part of our policy. They also allow the flexibility for the initial transfer order to exclude some functions within the fields listed in schedule 2 if it is concluded that they should not be transferred at present—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney raised with me on, I think, Second Reading. He has suggested that he intends to return to the subject tonight. Adding new fields to the list in schedule 2—the effect of some of the amendments that have been tabled—would require me to consider transferring such functions to the assembly; it would not require me to transfer some or all of them. If the additions were simply matters already included in one of the broad fields already in schedule 2, the amendment would have no effect at all. Removing a field from schedule 2 would not prevent the transfer order from including it; it would only remove the duty to consider including it.
I shall now return to the point about the Disabled Persons Act 1981 raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon. The 1981 Act is not mentioned in the draft transfer order because it, itself, amends various other Acts that are mentioned in the draft order, including the Highways Act 1980 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1972. The right hon. Gentleman was seeking to ensure that the assembly will have the power to consider those matters. I can only give him the answer by reference to the transfer order: the matters that are subsequently defined in the transfer order will be those that are devolved to the assembly. It is at that point that the right hon. Gentleman will have to seek to press the Government on the nature of the orders that are defined in the other pieces of legislation, the Highways Act or the Disabled Persons Act.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification, but some parts of the 1981 Act do not relate specifically to any other Act. May we take it that he would be prepared to look again at that question or any similar representations made in the context of the transfer orders to ensure that those powers that should be there are clearly there?

Mr. Davies: I shall certainly look—or perhaps I shall get someone else to look on my behalf—very closely at the 1981 Act to ensure that those functions, if any, that I currently discharge will be included in the transfer order. That is as far as I can go in giving the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
Schedule 2's other role relates to part III of the Bill. Clause 56 requires the assembly to set up subject committees. Each of them must have responsibilities in a field listed in schedule 2, but there is nothing to prevent its having responsibilities in more than one of the fields, or even all of them.
I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who made a powerful case for the assembly having a discrete responsibility for particular issues. The assembly—its internal architecture and policies—will decide how it wishes to handle those matters. What I am concerned with, and what the Bill is now concerned with, is the extent to which the powers that will be necessary for the assembly to discharge those responsibilities in the way that my hon. Friend suggests are contained in the Bill. I can give her the assurance that I think that she was seeking: I am content that adequate powers will be contained in the Bill and the subsequent transfer order to allow the assembly to discharge its functions in the way that she was suggesting.
Taken together, the subject committees must have responsibilities in all the fields listed in schedule 2, but they would not necessarily be defined in accordance with the particular fields that we have identified in schedule 2. Adding or subtracting a field in the schedule would not necessarily change the number of subject committees. That issue lies behind some of the amendments that I said we would consider later, so I hope that when we reach them the Committee will forgive me if my replies to those debates are brief.
There is no requirement that there should be a committee for each area. The assembly can set up committees for any subject that it wishes. If it wanted to have a committee for children's issues and rights—on which a number of hon. Members have spoken—it would be able to set one up. There is nothing that we can do—other than to make it explicit on the face of the Bill—that would require that to happen. I hope that the Committee will bear those points in mind when we consider amendments relating to schedule 2, particularly amendment No. 160 on the Council of the Isles, No. 157 on disablement policy, No. 159 on European affairs, No. 185 on sustainable development, No. 158 on rural affairs and No. 165 on children's issues and rights.

Mr. Rogers: I well understand that, within the transfer-of-function arrangements, financial arrangements would need to be made to carry out the transferred functions. However, in the event that, as my right hon. Friend just outlined, the assembly wanted to take to itself certain functions, by what mechanisms would it obtain money to carry them out—especially if it was in conflict with the Secretary of State?
Conflict between assembly and Secretary of State will be possible. Later clauses give the Secretary of State the right to allocate moneys to the assembly—the assembly has no immediate call on money, which can come only through the Secretary of State. Therefore, if the Secretary of State does not agree with the assembly on any power that it wishes to take to itself, or any committee that it

wishes to set up, or any function that it wishes to carry out, how can the assembly do that without tax-raising powers?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend raises two points.
First, it will be entirely for the assembly to decide how it wishes to organise and deliver in those policy areas for which it has responsibility, either as a result of the clause or the accompanying schedule. Matters that have been devolved to the assembly will be entirely a matter for the assembly, and its Members must make their judgments according to the available block grant—they must decide their priorities. There is no question of their doing anything else.
However, the importance of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) lay in the second question that he asked, about what would happen if the assembly wished to have additional powers. It would have those additional powers only if it were agreed by the Government of the day and Parliament. It would be perfectly feasible for additional powers to be given to the assembly, but the assembly and the Government of the day would then have to negotiate what additional resources would follow the granting of additional powers. That would be a discussion process, with the assembly getting the agreement of the Government of the day. I hope that that answers the point that my hon. Friend raised.
I return to amendment No. 144. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a range of functions with respect to police, fire, prisons, and so on in Wales. As I shall explain, I have some functions with respect to the funding of police and fire authorities, but they are the only functions in that field that the Government are considering for transfer to the assembly. I know that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon will understand my argument. Therefore, that aspect of amendment No. 144 is inappropriate, because it might prevent the transfer of my responsibilities relating to the funding of the fire service or of the police.
The remaining amendments in the group all seek to insert a field in schedule 2. Amendment No. 162 refers to
Administration of justice and the courts system.
Those are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor—not me—and the Government have no plans to change that responsibility.
Amendment No. 161 refers to "Policing, prisons and probation", and amendment No. 163 refers to the fire service. I have very limited responsibilities with respect to the police and fire services in Wales, but police authorities in Wales are funded jointly by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and me—about 51 per cent. of revenue comes from the Home Secretary in the form of police grant and the remainder from me through revenue support grant and redistributed non-domestic rates. Prisons and probation services are the responsibility of the Home Secretary, and the Government have no plans to change that.
If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West was speculating about which of the processes in clause 21 might be appropriate. I cannot give him an


answer to that because the Government are not proposing it, but it seems to me that if the Government of the day were proposing—

Mr. Jenkin: That is a cop-out.

Mr. Davies: It is not a cop-out. I do not know whether that remark was made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) or his side-kick of today.

Mr. Jenkin: His side-kick.

Mr. Davies: It is not a cop-out; it is a rational explanation of the position that might arise in five or 10 years' time. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want devolution to proceed, but I want it to succeed and I want it to work, and the answer—

Mr. Jenkin: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Davies: It has everything to do with it.
The answer that I am trying to give my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West is that if the Government of the day were to envisage a substantial transfer of powers—those that have not hitherto been devolved to me—from a Whitehall Department, obviously they would have to consider the option of primary legislation.
However, I cannot say what will happen in five or 10 years' time. I merely acknowledge the strength of my hon. Friend's argument. The Parliament of the day would have to acknowledge the strength of the argument. I should have thought that, in the case of a substantial transfer of powers, the Government of the day would be wise to ensure that consent had been obtained by means of a general election manifesto—or, conceivably, by a referendum—and then agreement by the House of Commons. That seems to me the process that a sensible Government, or any sensible participant in a political process, would want to adopt.

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): Disgraceful.

Mr. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows how to behave, and it is not the way to behave, sitting there interrupting the speeches.

Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend was talking to me.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Well, he should not be talking to anyone. He should be listening to the debate.

Mr. Davies: Had I more time, Mr. Martin, I might want to argue with your ruling that the right hon. Gentleman knows how to behave.
My sole responsibility with respect to the fire service is that of funding fire authorities in Wales as part of the funding provided to county and county borough councils under the local government finance settlement. The function there falls within the local government field in schedule 2.
6.45 pm
Amendment No. 157, on disablement policy—I have explained the case to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon; I hope to his satisfaction—and amendment No. 165, on children's issues and rights, raise different issues. Disablement policy cuts across almost all the functions of the assembly: it is not a field in itself. As I have explained in general terms already, such an amendment to schedule 2 is not the appropriate vehicle to ensure that the assembly establishes specific subject committees. That will have to be addressed through the assembly's standing orders. The same comments apply to children's issues and rights, which touch on many functions in such fields as health, education and social services.
I hope that the responses that I have given to hon. Members who have spoken to amendments are sufficient for them to realise that we have built in a sensible mechanism for the transfer of those powers that are currently devolved and a process that will allow the Government of the day, with the consent of Parliament, to ensure that the system of government in this country is carried on effectively with a commitment to the principle of devolution.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for initiating this interesting brief debate, but I hope that I have persuaded him not to press amendment No. 144 to a Division.

Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend said that amendment No. 144 was unnecessary because the present Government had no intention of transferring such powers. I think, with modest respect, that the intentions of the present Government are irrelevant to the nature of the legislation that we are drafting. The issue that should concern anyone who scrutinises the Bill is not the present Government's intentions, but the powers that we are bestowing on a future Executive.
I was suggesting that I could see that it would be very convenient for a future Government to have at its discretion the ability to use a simple order-making power instead of the process of primary legislation. We, as Back Benchers in this Parliament, should feel queasy about giving future Governments such powers—very wide powers, in clause 22(1), to transfer functions by simple order.
The debate has also drawn attention to something that the interesting contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) illustrated very well: the fact that we have not sat down and written a constitution. We do not have a written constitution and we are not producing one, so the problems of trying to use a piece of typical traditional process called a Bill to create a different set of constitutional arrangements lies at the heart of many of the dilemmas and difficulties that confront us. We do not have a constitutional settlement, so we do not have a written constitution and we do not have the means by which we would amend that constitution by changing the respective powers, so we are obliged to proceed using this traditional process.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, because we are not going down the radical new route of writing constitutions, but, instead, are using the traditional, pragmatic Bill process, we should feel especially queasy about bestowing on a future Executive powers of the type suggested in clause 22(1).
Arguments have been made from both sides of the Committee. The debate was essentially about the process—not about the merits of the respective transfers of future responsibilities and functions. I have listened carefully. I believe that it is arguable that aspects of home affairs in particular should possibly be devolved at some time.
I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the argument and the dilemmas that we have tried to grapple with are endemic in the process. We are not sitting down with a blank piece of paper and writing a new constitution that would lay down how all those matters should be dealt with. By undertaking the process as we are doing, we shall hit the same dilemmas time and again. We should not ignore them or pretend that they do not exist. As Members of Parliament legislating for the future, it is right that we should feel queasy about them. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 136, in page 13, line 5, leave out
'concurrence of or subject to the consent or approval'
and insert 'agreement'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 208, in page 13, line 21, at end insert—
'(5) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under this section for the transfer of taxation powers unless and until the proposals for such a transfer have been approved by the Welsh people in a referendum vote.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 207, in clause 23, page 14, line 41, after 'Minister', add
'but do not include the Chancellor of the Exchequer'.

Mr. Davies: Amendment No. 208 would insert new subsection (5) into clause 22, which would restrict the order-making powers of Her Majesty in Council on the recommendation of Ministers in the case of the transfer of taxation powers to the National Assembly. The amendment would limit that power through a referendum of the Welsh people.
Amendment No. 207 is slightly different. It would restrict the order-making power by amending the Bill to exclude the functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the order-making powers. It would do so by adding to subsection (10) of clause 23, which states that the words "Minister of the Crown" shall include a Scottish Minister. The amendment would add,
but do not include the Chancellor of the Exchequer".
Unless there is some defect in the drafting, that would ensure that taxation powers could not be transferred to the assembly by the order-making powers in clause 22.
It is always open to the House to do anything by Act of Parliament, including transferring taxation powers from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Welsh assembly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that that was the reason for clause 21(b), but we do not need it.

We do not need to be told that the House can do that. I do not want to pursue the argument, but why on earth do we need clause 21(b)?
Having listened to my right hon. Friend addressing the previous amendment and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who made an extremely interesting contribution, I think that I am pushing at a fairly open door. My right hon. Friend accepted that the White Paper had made it clear, and the referendum was fought on the basis, that there was no intention of transferring functions that operate on a UK basis.
Leaving aside the council tax and local taxes, with which the provision does not deal, the taxation functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer operate on a UK basis. I tried to argue previously that they were not functions in relation to Wales, and I shall not pursue that argument. It is interesting that the White Paper referred to functions that operate on a UK basis. Those are therefore not functions that relate just to Wales.
In his winding-up speech on the previous amendment, my right hon. Friend referred to UK-wide functions, so I should have thought that he and I were on all fours. When the referendum was fought, it was made clear that there was no intention to transfer to a Welsh assembly functions that operate on a UK-wide basis or on a UK basis.
I can see some difficulties with home affairs. There are certain functions that would be carried out on a Welsh basis, not on a UK basis. There might be some minor problems in relation to social security. However, as far as I am aware, the Secretary of State for Wales has no taxation functions in relation to Wales.
When we suggest in amendment No. 208 that there should be a referendum, or in amendment No. 207 that there should be an Act of Parliament, before the Order in Council, I do not see how my right hon. Friend could object. The argument is entirely consistent with his position.
I am not arguing for or against the transfer of powers of taxation. This is not a debate about whether a Welsh assembly should have taxation powers. In a single economic unit such as Britain, with a single currency and unrestricted freedom of movement of capital, persons and labour, it is daft to suggest that there should be different rates of income tax in that single economic unit, or different rates of capital gains tax, of VAT, if that was allowed under the European treaties, or of corporation tax. That is not the issue. The argument underlying the amendment is that we should not transfer powers of taxation, which are clearly UK-based powers, without an Act of Parliament or, better still, a referendum.
The amendments were tabled as a result of what my right hon. Friend clearly said during the Committee's previous sitting. When I shouted from a sedentary position, for which I apologise, "Taxation," my right hon. Friend readily and enthusiastically said yes. He seemed delighted that I had suggested that taxation could be transferred as well. I was rather surprised. Perhaps I am the only member of the Committee who is surprised that under the Bill it is possible to transfer taxation powers by order—an affirmative resolution is provided for in the Bill. Within one and a half hours, taxation powers can be transferred from the UK unitary state, the British Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Welsh assembly.
I tried my best to give my right hon. Friend an escape route. I argued first that, under clause 22, the functions had to be transferred by Act of Parliament, but he would have none of that. I am sure the draftsmen advised him about that. Then I argued that taxation powers were not powers in relation to Wales, but he would have none of that, either. I have done my best to stop him getting himself into a corner and telling the people of Wales that, despite having said in the White Paper and during the referendum that functions that operate on a UK basis would not be transferred, here we are—that can be done, not even by an Act of Parliament, but by Order in Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is more aware than I am of the Scottish referendum. I know that the example is not exactly the same, but in Scotland we deemed that there should be a separate question on whether the people of Scotland should have powers of taxation. I need not labour the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West—from a sedentary position or in his speech, I forget which—suggested that such powers are so fundamental that a referendum would be required.

7 pm

That is all we are asking. We are not asking for anything terrible. We are not saying that the Welsh Assembly should not be able to function properly. Those of us who raised these matters during an earlier devolution debate were immediately castigated as anti-devolution, but that is not the position. Previous debate has shown how difficult it is to handle these matters without a constitutional settlement.
In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West mentioned a dispute resolution system, and mentioned words such as "resource allocation system". He argued that all devolution systems should have such provisions within them. Well, the mechanism before us does not. I have referred to some of the matters that some of us tried to raise during the referendum campaign, which are seen by others as antipathetic to devolution.
We have heard this evening about defence and foreign affairs. Those matters are not the subject of the amendment, but, by analogy, there is no reason why the powers of the Secretary of State for Defence and those of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs should not be transferred. Apparently, such powers are related to Wales and are thus able to be transferred by Order in Council in an hour and a half.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that there is no intention of pursuing that course. The White Paper did not refer to such transfers, but surely these matters are so fundamental that it should have done so. I invite my right hon. Friend to accept, or to consider constructively, one or other of the amendments—in other words, either a referendum or an Act of Parliament. There is a choice between one or the other, but a fundamental limitation should be placed on the transfer of fundamental taxation powers merely by Order in Council.

Mr. Ancram: I support the amendment of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), especially in the light of his closing remarks. Indeed, we are looking for a safeguard, which should take the form of an undertaking

in the Bill that primary legislation would be required for significant transfers of power, or, alternatively, a mechanism for triggering a referendum so that the people of Wales would not have foisted on them something for which they had not voted in a democratic vote.
The amendment reflects the lack of success that we have had in trying to pierce the Secretary of State's intransigence and in endeavouring to get it through to him that we are not trying to destroy his Bill. We are not trying to dilute devolution. We are merely trying to provide some safeguards that will give people confidence that we are engaged in devolution within the United Kingdom, but not in a process that will lead inevitably to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State says over and over again that the sovereignty of Parliament will ensure that the break-up of the United Kingdom cannot happen. The more I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman, the more I have come to the conclusion that he is talking not about the sovereignty of Parliament but about that of government. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that Parliament can always turn down an Order in Council at the end of the day if it is put before it. He argues that Parliament does not need to approve it, and that, in that event, Parliament has exercised its supremacy and sovereignty.
The Secretary of State then says, however, that it is up to the Government of the day to decide whether these matters will be heard by primary legislation or by an Order in Council. The right hon. Gentleman is saying—there may be some terrible element of constitutional truth in this—that we have a system where the Government can decide and deliver, through whipping their majority, anything that they may want to introduce.
If that is the position—I hope that the Secretary of State will respond when he replies to the debate—what is the distinction he sees between an Order in Council and an Act of primary legislation? Why do we have primary legislation? The answer is to give the House of Commons the chance to scrutinise, debate, amend and, if necessary, change proposed legislation that is put before it.
Let us consider the amount of detail that will be in the draft order and contemplate that, at some stage in future, another Order in Council may be introduced containing an enormous amount of detail, not one item of which will be changeable. The House of Commons would be asked to take it or leave it. If the Government put such an order before the House of Commons with a whipped majority behind them, it will be agreed to. In terms of creating confidence in devolution and in what is being transferred, that surely cannot be the right approach.
We return to what the Secretary of State said last Wednesday evening. When the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about the transfer of substantial power from the Home Office, he asked whether that would be done by order or by primary legislation. The Secretary of State said:
I cannot answer that question; we are not proposing it anyway. Some future Government might decide that it was necessary to transfer substantial additional powers to the Welsh assembly.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli interjected:
Like taxation?
The Secretary of State said:
That is not what I am proposing, but a future Government might consider it. If so, I am sure that the Government of the day and Parliament would say, 'Hang on, you cannot do that by order: it is a substantial shift'.


What is a "substantial shift"? What is significant in terms of the powers that might be transferred?
The Secretary of State went on to say that, of course, the necessary provision was included in the Bill. In answer to the question that he had been asked, he added that
legislation must be acted on in the light of political common sense.
I think it was the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney who warned us not to put too much store by common sense. He reminded us that we know that politically that is not always the safest way in which to proceed. I think that that was the tenor of his remarks. I hope that I have not misquoted him.
The Secretary of State said, however, that legislation would
be acted on in the light of political common sense.
He added:
Meanwhile, the Bill contains a mechanism for a transfer order dealing with law-and-order issues and other non-controversial matters that a Government of the future might believe could be transferred by order after a one-and-a-half hour debate.
Again, he uses "non-controversial" as an adjective. We have no definition of non-controversial. For added measure, the Secretary of State finishes by saying:
Other, larger areas of responsibility may need primary legislation, however."—[Official Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1106–07.]
We have a "substantial shift" that has not been defined. Similarly, "common sense" has not been defined, along with "non-controversial" and "larger". Yet we are being asked to accept an act of faith to the effect that, when any of these adjectives come into play, there will be primary legislation of the sort that we were seeking last week, or there will be a referendum of the sort that right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli is seeking, but when these adjectives are not applicable there will be a simple order that will be debated for one and a half hours and then passed.
It is not being anti-devolution or anti-assembly to say that that is selling the House of Commons a pig in a poke. We do not know what we are being asked to accept or support. When the Secretary of State is asked what he means by "significant" and he is given examples, he says that he cannot answer the question because he is not proposing such a thing. However, I understand that this is a constitutional Bill. That is why consideration of it in Committee is being taken on the Floor of the House.
It is a constitutional measure which is not just for today, because it is supposed to create a long-term assembly; yet, at the most important or crucial part of the Bill—the power to transfer functions now and in future—we have what can be described only as a foggy mass, without one definition or distinction that allows the House of Commons to know how things will be done.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) referred to Northern Ireland. I know what it is like to govern by Order in Council, and I stood at the Government Dispatch Box on a number of occasions when we renewed the order

that allowed us to do so. I said over and over, "I hope this is the last year that we have to do this, because it is not a fully democratic way of making decisions in the House."

Mr. Öpik: Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts, as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) did, that comparisons between Northern Ireland and Wales are wholly inappropriate in this debate.

Mr. Ancram: I do not make that comparison. I was taking a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, who did make that comparison, which he pushed. I saw what Orders in Council did, and hon. Members from Northern Ireland asked over and over for primary legislation in the House to take through their legislation.
If we leave these two amendments as they stand, they will build into the Bill something that will cause enormous confrontation. In relation to taxation powers and the powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is difficult to understand under the order- making power what is possible. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain.
Clause 22(1)(a) allows
the transfer to the Assembly of any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales.
We know from his comments on Wednesday that that includes taxation, because he did not say that it did not.
Clause 22(1)(b) includes the power to
direct that any function so far as so exercisable shall be exercisable by the Assembly concurrently with the Minister of the Crown.
Does that mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Assembly can exercise some tax-raising powers?
The third power that the Bill gives, in clause 22(1)(c), is even more strange. It is to
direct that any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales shall be exercisable by the Minister only with the concurrence of or subject to the consent or approval of, or after consultation with, the Assembly.
In terms of taxation as it relates to Wales, in the manner that was described last Wednesday, and not denied by the Secretary of State, does that mean that the assembly could be given the right of veto over taxation matters?

Mr. Ron Davies: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is his Bill—

Mr. Davies: We have dealt with it.

Mr. Ancram: If the Secretary of State had dealt with it, I would not be raising these matters again now. We have not had a single answer from him except to say, "It does not matter, because we are not proposing that today." The fact that he is not proposing it today does not mean that we do not have the right to raise these serious matters, which are germane to the way in which the legislation will work in future.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli was right to table the amendment, because no guarantee or assurance has been given to the people of Wales or to the House. If the Secretary of State is prepared to listen to these arguments—which were made, if I may say so,


with a great deal of charm by the right hon. Member for Llanelli, in an effort to sway his right hon. Friend—I will believe that he is serious about wanting such devolution to work within the United Kingdom. If he brushes them aside, as he has brushed aside every amendment that has so far been moved, on the basis that the Bill is perfect, the worst fears that we on the Opposition Benches have about what he is trying to achieve will be realised.

Mr. Rogers: I do not know why we have got into this position, because a White Paper was published and the people of Wales, in a referendum, gave their approval for an assembly with the powers as outlined.
The Secretary of State—rather touchily—thought that I was accusing him of breaking faith. What I said was that I am sure that he would not want to do that. I am quite sure that he wants for the assembly only the powers that were outlined in the White Paper—powers for which the people of Wales gave their mandate. It is as simple as that, so why are we having this unnecessary argument? All the Bill needs to contain is that which is in the White Paper and what was put before the people of Wales in the referendum. Nobody else, no matter who they are, has a mandate beyond what the people of Wales decided in September.
If someone wants nationalism by the back door, that is up to them. I am never quite sure what the Liberal Democrats want, but I am pretty sure what Plaid Cymru Members want, as they are pretty honest about their position. I will give them that, but that is about the only thing that I would give them. We also know what the Labour party wants, and I presume that that is what the Government are attempting to implement.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) outlined the problem of the transfer of powers. I do not think that the present Government or Secretary of State want to break faith with the people of Wales, but, quite frankly, I do not trust politicians. Having been in the House for almost 17 years with that lot opposite in government, I have no faith in future Governments. We saw government by Order in Council when the Conservatives were in power. We saw how Mrs. Thatcher used Orders in Council time and again so that issues such as trade union law and other matters were not discussed on the Floor of the House. It was government by fiat. I do not trust future Governments.
That is why I appeal to the Secretary of State to take on the fears about social security and home affairs, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), about defence and foreign affairs, which I raised, and about taxation, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli raised.
It is easy enough. Just as schedule 2 states the responsibilities of the assembly, another schedule or whatever—however the draftsman wishes to draw it up—should say what the assembly cannot do; or we should not include a clause that will allow the transfer of functions by a Government who, for instance, might have to rely on the Liberal Democrats for a majority, or who might have to buy off Welsh nationalists to get their votes to stay in power. One never knows what will happen in future. I have great faith in the Labour party being honourable and straightforward, but I certainly do not trust those on the Opposition Benches, and never have.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to take us out of this unnecessary argument, to prevent our political opponents from making points—we know why they want to make their points—and adhere to the principles of the White Paper and the policy on which we fought the election.

Mr. Öpik: I have listened carefully to the debate, and the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has not convinced the Liberal Democrats that tax-varying powers should not be transferred, and he did not convince us when we had the referendum. It is a matter of speculation now, and not one on which I shall dwell, but perhaps, had we had a constitutional convention in Wales, as there was in Scotland, tax-varying powers would be included at the outset of the creation of a Welsh assembly.
We must face the fact that tax-varying powers were not included in the initial set-up. The best evidence for the benefits of tax-varying powers will be in the operation of the Scottish Parliament, which has those powers. Moreover, as people begin to trust the Welsh assembly more, they will realise that it is not such a big risk to trust it also with financial decision making of that type.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: While it may be entirely appropriate to trust the assembly, will the hon. Gentleman trust the Welsh people by at least allowing them a further referendum to discuss what he evidently believes was missed out in the last referendum?

Mr. Öpik: It is always a pleasure to take interventions from the hon. Gentleman. He asks a perfectly valid question. Let me explain simply that we do not support the idea of a referendum because if the Welsh assembly is to have real teeth, it must have tax-varying powers at the outset. Having voted for a limited degree of autonomy, especially in the financial context, for the Welsh assembly, the last thing that the Liberal Democrats want to do is add further obstacles to right a small wrong.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Öpik: I am spoilt for choice. I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

Mr. Grieve: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman identifies only tax-varying powers, because those are the product of primary legislation, which the Welsh assembly has no power to implement.

Mr. Öpik: That takes us back to the somewhat pedantic debate on the transfer of powers. We have already spent three hours today discussing a legitimate issue under the previous amendment, so I do not propose to reopen that debate. I simply reiterate that the Liberal Democrats would have liked tax-varying powers to be included in the first referendum. Contrary to the belief of some hon. Members, had we spent a number of years acclimatising the Welsh people to the concept of an assembly, that would not have been a problem—it could even have been a bonus. Indeed, it may have strengthened the yes vote.

Mr. Hayes: There seems to be a contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's comments. He says on one hand, that tax-raising powers are a minor issue which does not require the further consent of the Welsh people and on the other, that the Liberal Democrats are passionately


committed to tax-raising powers, which are fundamentally important. The ability to raise tax is usually regarded as a fundamental part of a democratic body. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the issue is important or not?

Mr. Öpik: It is clearly an important issue; otherwise, I would not have based my speech on it. If Conservative Members have any faith in the competence of individuals who are elected to the House of Commons to make decisions of that nature, they should not be afraid of the democratic process within which we find ourselves this evening. Furthermore, they should not be afraid of allowing those who are employed to represent their constituents to make such decisions on their behalf.
I do not want to enter the sort of debate that I had during my philosophy degree at Bristol university.

Hon. Members: Do, do.

Mr. Livsey: Do not be tempted.

Mr. Öpik: I am guided by the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased if I do not enter a deep discussion on the merits of political systems.
The Liberal Democrats believe that it would have been right to have tax-varying powers in the first place. More to the point, the simpler that we can make the method of introducing them, when doing so seems appropriate to others in the House, the better. A referendum would simply hold things up. We now have the fundamental principle of a Welsh assembly and we should make progress by improving the assembly's autonomy and influence as fast as we can, with minimum fuss and disruption.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. that a referendum would hold things up because it is extremely unlikely that the Welsh people would vote yes to tax-varying powers. Does he accept that, even in the Scottish referendum, there was a yes vote for the Parliament, but 10 per cent. fewer people wanted tax-varying powers? In Wales, 50.3 per cent. voted yes; 10 per cent. fewer people would take the vote to 40 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not allow his constituents the opportunity to say whether they wanted tax-varying powers for a future assembly?

Mr. Öpik: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's input. Although sense is not all that common in politics, surely there is enough common sense in this Committee to recognise when the Welsh people would be prepared to accept an extension of powers, without the need for a referendum. I shall state the obvious and put an end to this spurious debate—[Interruption.] These questions are not black and white. It is perfectly legitimate for others to argue that we could have a referendum; the Liberal Democrats simply say that we have always wanted the assembly to have tax-varying powers. We said so during the referendum debate and we continue to say so now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Öpik: Hon. Members are flooding in to support the case that I am making on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it appropriate for leaders of political parties to come to the rescue of their members?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair. Before I call the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) back to the Floor, may I say that there is an awful lot of background noise in the Chamber. It is unfair to those addressing the Committee.

Mr. Öpik: Thank you, Mr. Martin. May I say that it is a delight to be in a political party whose leader is sufficiently interested in the subject of Wales to come and listen to, and perhaps participate in, the debate? I do not blame the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for being jealous; obviously, he would wish that to happen in his party.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: No. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech if he wants to comment on what I have said.
Tax-varying powers are a central requirement of a Welsh assembly if it is to enjoy sufficient financial autonomy to make the Welsh economy shine. It is a matter of legitimate debate whether we need a referendum, but the Liberal Democrats believe that, now that we have had a yes vote, we must make the assembly work. The Scottish precedent shows that it could be a foolish waste of money to hold a referendum because eventually it will be obvious to everyone, even the doubting Thomases in this Committee, not simply that tax-varying powers for Wales would be nice to have, but that ultimately, they are necessary if the Welsh assembly is to maximise its potential.

Mr. Dalyell: I hear interesting whispers in my ear that discourteous speeches from Scots would be less than well received, so I shall ask just two questions. First, have I got the wrong end of the stick in thinking that, under these proposals, Westminster will be stripped of sovereignty? That fact emerged in the perceptive speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We can talk about sovereignty remaining in Westminster for as long as we like, but given the political reality of setting up an assembly in Cardiff, is not Westminster stripped of sovereignty?
Secondly, I would be fascinated to hear an explanation from the Secretary of State. I thought that I was immersed in what has been written on this subject, but I have honestly never really understood why it was considered right that an assembly at Holyrood should have taxation powers and that an assembly in Cardiff should not. It would be nice if that were explained.

Mr. Swayne: It would have been better if the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) had regaled us with the philosophy that he learned at university, rather than such sophistry. It is extraordinary that the process of recent government—the previous Administration were as


guilty as any other—has been such that we are increasingly becoming a bureaucracy. Orders in Council and other legislative instruments, which defy the House's ability to scrutinise legislation properly, give power to the Executive.
The referendum specifically excluded the possibility of tax-raising powers, so it is absurd that the Bill contains the means by which a future Government—or, indeed, this Government—can choose to give the assembly such powers. I do not doubt that, had the debate that we have had in the past 45 minutes been rehearsed before the referendum, we would have had a different result; I understand that the actual result is in some doubt.
After the result of the referendum, the Prime Minister said that the Government would act with some sensitivity. The amendments strike me as the very basis of such sensitivity. If the Government cannot be sensitive enough to accept them, I cannot conceive of what such sensitivity consists.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for contributing to the debate, because his speech was astonishing in the light of the assurances that were given when this matter came up on Second Reading. The fear and anxiety of Conservative Members is that, far from government getting closer to the people, the more accountability that is removed, so that politicians are not accountable and the House does not discuss matters, the more the system resembles bureaucratic government. The Government are being offered sweeping powers to transfer other powers by Orders in Council.
At the moment, taxation requires primary legislation. However, we can foresee a time when that will cease to be so, and it, too, could be rafted off without the House being consulted. It would be consistent with the Secretary of State's approach to the Bill for any future transfer of power to be determined by the House with the consent of the people of Wales, so it would be wrong for the clause to stand unamended.

Mr. Edward Leigh: This is an interesting amendment, because it underlines an important constitutional problem. I am sure that the Government will claim that they cannot legislate for something that will not happen. They will argue that when a certain proposition was put to the people of Wales, they were not given the opportunity to vote for tax-raising powers. They will say that they have no intention of giving the assembly such powers, so the amendment is unnecessary, and that Acts of Parliament would be unbelievably long if we had to legislate for what may never happen.
That point is all right as far as it goes, but the amendment shows that there is a problem with referendums. We are moving into an era when more and more important issues will be decided by referendum, and they will become increasingly common. Hitherto, we have had an unwritten constitution and Parliament has been supreme. Under a written constitution, decisions are often made by way of referendums; how they should be prescribed and circumscribed is carefully set down in the constitution.
In our case, we have no way of knowing what a referendum decides. Logically, if there is a substantial change in Government policy after a referendum has been put to the people, another referendum should be held.

That is what caused the angst and difficulty during the previous Parliament in debates on Europe. It was considered that the people had decided our place in Europe on the basis of certain propositions contained in the treaty of Rome, and although more and more powers were added or were given away, the people were not given the opportunity to vote on any such changes in a referendum. That is what caused the upset, and why the then Government and the present Government finally accepted that there should be a referendum if there were a significant change and we were to join a single currency.
If we are to use the device of a referendum more often, we must establish at an early stage in our deliberations that if the Government put a certain proposition to the people and subsequently want to give significantly greater powers to the Welsh assembly or to the Scottish Parliament, they should hold another referendum.
The amendment is important because the democratic rights that have been given to the people of Scotland to decide these issues should not be denied to the people of Wales. There should be some similarity of treatment between Scotland and Wales.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made a very weak speech which lacked any intellectual rigour. He seemed to be saying that there should be a creeping increase in the Welsh assembly's powers, and that he did not know what all the fuss was about. He did not deal with any of the points made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), or with any of our serious arguments. I thought that the Liberal Democrats were committed to the principle of a referendum. They now seem to be committed to the principle that people can decide what they like by referendum, but that that can be overturned by subsequent Orders in Council.

Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the contradiction between his comments and those of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)? Furthermore, does he not understand the simple point that we made? The Liberal Democrats have always supported the idea of tax-raising powers and continue to do so, and believe that in the fulness of time, they will be the logical consequence of a successful Welsh assembly.

Mr. Leigh: There is no contradiction between what I am saying and what my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said. If the Liberal Democrats are committed to the principle of tax-raising powers for the Welsh assembly, they should have confidence in the Welsh people, who will want to vote on that in a referendum. A future Government should not be entitled to introduce such major and sweeping powers by the back door through Orders in Council. I am disappointed in the Liberal Democrats, because I thought that they were democrats and wanted to give more power to ordinary people, but clearly they do not.

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance, and he cannot go on intervening. He is doing his argument no good.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will give this important amendment serious consideration.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a particular pleasure to make my "maiden speech" in


the deliberations on the Bill in support of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I was present for most of the Second Reading debate, but was not here for last week's Committee debate, as I was in Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland Select Committee.
I am only half a Welshman, but more of my blood comes from Wales than from any other part of the kingdom. I do not recall the exact slogan that was used in the Welsh referendum campaign, but I believe that it was to the effect that Wales should not allow Scotland to leave it behind. My personal impression had been that, in the proposals for Wales—not least in view of the absence of any reference to taxation—Wales had already been left behind. As half a Welshman—whatever my views on devolution—I resented the fact that Wales was being short-changed. I sensed that what was being offered was cynically regarded as the minimum that Wales could be relied to vote for.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli spoke eloquently. He will not remember the occasion when, during the run-up to the 1979 general election, we were conducting an economic debate in the House and had reached one of those tundras of mid-evening when the Chamber is more or less empty. It is possible that the Whips were present, but I suspect that they had been sent out to scour the highways and byways for anyone who might be able to contribute at least a half-economic idea. I recall that those present were my noble Friend Lord Stewartby—then Member of Parliament for Hitchin—the right hon. Member for Llanelli and me.
In my speech, I made a prediction. I said that the Labour party faced another tundra—the prospect of being in the wilderness for many years. I also quoted lines that I had learnt at my mother's knee about the children of Israel:

"Joshua the Son of Nun
And Caleb the Son of Jephunneh
Were the only two
Who ever got through
To the land of milk and honey."

Because my noble Friend—as he is now—and I were both members of the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill and knew the right hon. Member for Llanelli to be a distinguished Treasury Minister, I then expressed the hope that the role of either Caleb or Joshua would fall to him when Labour came back from the wilderness. I must say now, on the basis of the thoughtful contributions that the right hon. Gentleman is making to our deliberations, that in my view, the Government would be significantly stronger if he were a member of it.
As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman spoke to his amendments very eloquently, and I do not propose to dwell on them. Let me emulate the 18th-century Member of Parliament who, after a long speech by Edmund Burke, simply rose and said, "Ditto", and say that I am in the right hon. Gentleman's camp. If the Secretary of State—who has temporarily gone to seek advice—resists the right hon. Gentleman's case, I for one will regard that as a contradiction of his argument in favour of the Bill that

central Government cannot be relied on, or trusted, to make decisions for Wales if the people of Wales are opposed to those views.

Mr. Letwin: I should like clarification of one point. Amendment No. 207—with which, in common with most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I entirely sympathise—relies on a particular interpretation, and brings to light a particular problem. To a layman reading clause 22(1)(a), it appears clear that the powers that can be transferred by order are those that are already exercisable—I admit that the clause does not actually say this—by order, and that is, by parenthesis,
by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales".
I take it that that paragraph does not intend to enable by order the transfer of powers where those powers can currently be exercised through primary legislation.
It so happens that, under the Finance Acts—I admit that I did not check all of them, but I checked the last eight or nine—there has been no instance, at least recently, of a major taxation power being given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for him to exercise by order. For example, under local government finance legislation, income tax rates might have been devolved to the Secretary of State for him to exercise by order, but in the case of Finance Acts, they are not so devolved; the rates themselves appear in the Acts. I assume that amendment No. 207 would not be needed in the case of a Finance Act to prevent a transfer by order of taxation powers—as things currently stand in constitutional precedent, and as that precedent relates to the Finance Act.
That point brings me to the reason why I support the amendment so strongly. We can replay exactly what I have just said the other way round. As the Bill stands, it gives a dreadful incentive to the Government—this, perhaps, illustrates in just one more way how constitutional measures such as this affect not just the parts of the kingdom to which they ostensibly refer, but the whole kingdom—to change current practice in relation to the Finance Act, and to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer powers by order, for example, to change income tax rates, which I understand is entirely legitimate but unprecedented. Furthermore, in the absence of amendment No. 207, clause 22(1)(a) would make it possible by order to transfer powers of taxation to the Welsh Assembly.
There is a dreadful possibility that something that is fundamental to the liberties of people in the United Kingdom as a whole, and England in particular, could be changed under the pressure of an incentive created by a constitutional laxity in the Bill. For that reason if for no other, it seems to me extraordinarily important that English Members should seek a change in the Bill in line with the amendment.

Mr. Hayes: I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate, particularly—if I may say so without flattering you, Mr. Jones—with you in the Chair. I shall resist the temptation to tease you about the result of the referendum vote in Hawarden or in any other part of Flintshire. In that part of Wales that we both know so well, the vote was heavily against devolution.

Mr. David Hanson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: In a moment; I have hardly got going.
Much of the debate has focused on the definition of powers. It is important to point out—particularly for the benefit of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—that the debate is about not the powers themselves, but the ability to change and vary them: the ability to transfer powers from one body to another. The hon. Gentleman's speech was based entirely on the historical debate about whether the assembly should have had tax-raising powers initially.
It is appropriate for us to consider the transfer and the varying of powers, particularly in respect of tax. The Government deemed that so important in Scotland that they decided to place it on the Scottish referendum ballot paper, and I think that they were right to do so. Clearly, the ability to raise tax, the nature of the relationship between representation and taxation and the tenet of democratic power represented by tax-varying powers are fundamentally important. Yet we hear, in respect of the Welsh assembly, that this fundamentally important tenet of a democratic institution—that fundamental part of the exercise of political power—is not to be subject to the further consent of the Welsh people. It is not to be subject to their consent at all, given its exclusion from the initial referendum. The Welsh people will therefore be peculiarly disadvantaged in that respect. The Scottish people were deemed competent to make the judgment, but we know not whence the authority will originate in respect of the Welsh.
I must comment further on the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. He claimed that this was a mere matter of detail that did not require further democratic consultation, but—as I pointed out in an intervention—simultaneously claimed that it was so fundamentally important that it was a core part of the Liberal Democrats' campaign during the referendum debate.

Mr. Letwin: I have been puzzling for some time about the logic of the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). Does my hon. Friend agree that it could be reduced to the following proposition? At the time of the referendum, the Liberal Democrats took the view that there should be tax-raising powers; the people of Wales did not. The Liberal Democrats therefore provide a constitutional basis for assuming that the referendum should have had a result that it did not have, and, accordingly, no further democratic legitimisation is necessary.

Mr. Hayes: The situation is even more stark and extraordinary than my hon. Friend suggests. The Liberal Democrat view in respect of Europe is that a referendum is not only desirable but necessary. However, they take a rather less generous view about the will of the Welsh people. That is an inherent contradiction.

Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: No. I must make progress.
As I have said, the nub of the debate is the ability to transfer and move powers: it is not about the powers themselves. On various occasions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has described the legislation as a dog's dinner, a pig in a poke and, I think, a fog. That is an interesting and colourful use of

metaphors. One might say that we have been left with a pig's breakfast or perhaps a dog in a poke—at least a confused relationship between the bodies that exercise political power. Later in Committee, we shall debate cross-border authority and that may lead to further discussion about the confused relationship.
For the purpose of clarity, the Secretary of State must give an authoritative answer about the precise relationship between the bodies that exercise political power in Wales and the way that political sovereignty and authority are transferred between them.

Mr. Ron Davies: I express my deep gratitude to, and my undying admiration for, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Without his considered and helpful amendment, we should have been denied a fascinating debate over the past hour. He used his considerable expertise in putting his case and he is invariably helpful when he tables such amendments. I must decline my right hon. Friend's offer. He suggested that I might want to accept the amendments to get myself out of what he perceived to be a difficulty, but I do not perceive myself to be in any difficulty. Let us see whether we can agree on a starting point.
The White Paper made it plain that the assembly would not inherit functions that operate on a common UK basis, and they include taxation and macro-economic policy. It also made it clear that my functions on local taxation, which are operated separately in Wales, would be transferred to the assembly, although the Government will not take a decision on capping powers, for example, until the outcome of the current review of local government finance is known. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and other hon. Members who have expressed an interest in the matter intended to imply through amendment No. 208 that the assembly would not have responsibilities for local taxation in Wales unless there were a referendum on the matter. That is the essence of my right hon. Friend's amendment. I do not want to use that as a means of rejecting the principle of what he said because he said that he was pressing at an open door.
The Government believe in holding a referendum if there is an important matter before Parliament. Perhaps, in the future, this Government, or any other, would want to do that if they were minded to go down the road of conveying tax-raising powers to the assembly. That proposal is not before the Committee, although I do not want to take refuge in that technical argument by using it to reject my right hon. Friend's two amendments.
Powers for the assembly on personal and corporate taxation formed no part of the proposals that the Government put to the Welsh people in September's referendum. I listened carefully to the considered speech by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Ôpik), although I disagree with its central thrust that the assembly should have tax-raising powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked whether the assembly would have the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. We could have a fascinating argument on that, but, if I went down that road, I should be called to order. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. He also asked whether, in the absence of the amendments, Parliament would be stripped of its sovereignty because powers would be passed to the Welsh assembly. The simple answer to


that is no. All the powers that we propose to transfer, whether by primary or secondary legislation, will ultimately have to be approved by Parliament. As we have said time and again, sovereignty rests in this Parliament, and no powers, whether they be for tax raising or for anything else, can pass to the assembly without the consent of Parliament.
As I have said, powers for the assembly on personal and corporate taxation form no part of the proposals. I do not think that any future Government who propose a tax-varying power for the assembly will present legislation without the express consent of the Welsh people. It is inconceivable that that could happen. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who wish to intervene should refer themselves to me and not use passing references in my speech to make ill-considered and unprovoked attacks on other hon. Members.
It is difficult to think of any circumstance in which the express consent of the people would not be sought. It is unnecessary to provide for that in the Bill because Ministers do not have powers to vary taxation. If powers existed to transfer taxation powers by means of secondary legislation, there might be a case for such a provision, although I do not think that there is.

Mr. Ancram: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall shortly give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but first I should like to respond to his speech.
If such transfer powers existed, it might be fair to say that safeguards should be placed in the Bill. There is no such power.

Mr. Ancram: rose—

Mr. Letwin: rose—

Mr. Davies: There is nothing like talk of referendums and the attendant question of Europe to get the Conservative party into a frenzy. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will contribute to the debate in an ordered and considered way.

Mr. Ancram: On Wednesday, the Minister gave a clear sign that he thought that taxation powers could be transferred by order, but went on to say that, of course, he would say, "Hang on, we should not do it that way." Is he withdrawing that remark and saying that they cannot be transferred by order? That is salient to the debate.

Mr. Davies: No, I am not saying that at all, and if the right hon. Gentleman asked me to say it, I would have to decline his invitation. Wednesday's debate was in an entirely different context and he was asking theoretical questions. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's habit of pouting and gesticulating when he does not like answers is not one of his most endearing. If he persists in asking self-evident questions, he must expect self-evident answers. Wednesday's debate was quite different from this one.
In theory, a range of matters could be transferred to the assembly, but, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, if the transfer of such powers were

proposed, it is likely that a future Parliament would say, "Hold on a minute." Any sensible Government with a practical, commonsense approach would say, "Those hugely significant powers cannot be transferred except by primary legislation." That was the case that I put on Wednesday and I am putting it again now.
It is unnecessary to provide in the Bill the safeguards that have been suggested because Ministers themselves do not have powers to vary taxation. Changes in tax rates are set out in the annual Finance Bill. Amendment No. 207 would prevent the transfer of any functions from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the assembly.
Acts do not usually confer functions—this is an important point for my right hon. Friend, who is a former Treasury Minister—on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The modern practice is that Acts confer functions on the Treasury, although some older Acts are different. The Government's policy is plain—we shall not be transferring to the assembly functions to do with macro-economic policy and United Kingdom taxation. The amendment is unnecessary to achieve that outcome. I remind the House that all orders under clause 22 are subject to affirmative resolution. Therefore, if any future Government wished to transfer significant Treasury functions to the assembly, they could do so only through primary legislation conveying those powers to a Treasury Minister, and then seeking further consent, by means of approval of an order, to transfer those powers from the Minister to the assembly.

8 pm

Finance and other Acts dealing with matters such as income tax, capital gains tax and excise duties generally proceed by specifying what taxes individuals or companies must pay. There is no power to amend those provisions other than through the annual Finance Bill. For the most part, there are no ministerial functions that could be transferred to the assembly. There are certainly no ministerial powers to vary income tax, which is why the Scotland Bill is drafted in the way that it is.

Mr. Letwin: The right hon. Gentleman has now begun to clarify the matter. Does he accept that the consequence of what he is saying is that if, in some Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer were given powers to make by order whatever rates of income tax that he so wished, those powers subsequently could be transferred by order to the Welsh assembly?

Mr. Davies: I shall not be drawn into hypothetical constructions. The hon. Gentleman could equally say that, if it were the Government's policy to make rockets to fly to the moon, the power to build those rockets could be transferred to the Welsh assembly. [Interruption.] I thought that that would get a ready response from the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). However, I do not intend to become involved in hypothetical discussions about propositions that this Government have no intention of putting before the people.
Functions connected with the collection of national taxation are vested in the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue and of Customs and Excise. None of those functions can be transferred to the assembly under clause


22 because the two sets of commissioners have not been included in the definition of "Minister of the Crown" in clause 145.
I want to deal with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I have heard the speech that he made this evening at least half a dozen times before. There are genuine matters that need to be debated, but such tedious repetition time after time does not do his case any good and does not help the Committee explore the real issues. Our debate last week was an interesting precursor of what was to come today. [Interruption.] I am replying to the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised—[Interruption.] He has two ears and should apply them both to this serious debate; we might then be excused yet another repetition of his speech later this evening.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember our debate last week and the amendments tabled in his name. He said that power should be transferred to the assembly only through primary legislation, but then suggested that the Bill should provide for the unilateral removal of powers from the assembly through secondary legislation. We have had a re-run of his argument. He says that no transfer of powers to the assembly should be done through secondary legislation, but only last week he was arguing that it would be a suitable mechanism for taking powers back from the assembly.
As I said, we have serious issues to debate, but the right hon. Gentleman has not done his case any good. He and his colleagues have indulged in time wasting. We have seen synthetic indignation from his hon. Friends who have come into the Chamber only because there is a debate about a referendum. They do not have the slightest interest in Welsh devolution or in the Bill—they just want to rehearse spurious arguments about the holding of a referendum.
The statements that we have had from Conservative Members are wholly bogus. The argument for a referendum is clear when there is a specific proposition before a political party, before the country, or before a Government. None of those circumstances applies at the moment. My party is not proposing to convey powers to the assembly to raise taxation and the Government are not proposing to do so. There is no proposal to put that before the people at the next election or for the Government to introduce any such legislation.
When referendums have been held, there has always been a specific matter before a political party which it needs to resolve. The Conservative party understands the need sometimes to use a referendum to get it out of a difficult position. My party certainly recognised that, on the devolution question, there was a strong strategic argument in favour of a referendum to obtain the specific consent of the people for constitutional change. The Government recognise that if the status of sterling were to be changed, there would have to be a referendum or the consent of the people obtained at a general election. My party and this Government do not have any proposition before them to alter the status of the assembly by conveying to it the power to raise taxation. Therefore, the arguments that we have heard are entirely irrelevant.
As the right hon. Member for Devizes waxes so indignantly about the matter, why did he not table any amendments to clause 22? All the arguments from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been in

support of an amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. If the Opposition had any commitment or determination to pursue the matter, they would have tabled their own amendments.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman referred to amendments we had tabled for last Wednesday's debate. If he looks at them, he will find that they were to clause 22. They were tabled to allow us to make the points that we did. We are supporting the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) tonight because the Secretary of State failed to take any account of our amendments. I hope that he will take account of those tabled by his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Davies: I clearly acknowledged that amendments had been tabled last week—specifically, amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47. I reminded the House that the purpose of those amendments was not to provide for a referendum or to provide any safeguards. Amendment No. 45 would convey powers to the assembly exclusively through primary legislation. There was no reference to either a referendum or to taxation powers. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would take powers away from the assembly through secondary legislation, not primary legislation. They have nothing to do with the amendments that we are discussing, which is why this evening we heard a repetition of the right hon. Gentleman's boring, tedious old speech.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for valiantly working his way—this is no criticism—through the taxation powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Inland Revenue and the Treasury. It is not a simple matter, as taxation covers all sorts of different areas.
I was as surprised as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and others when, during our last debate, my right hon. Friend said that it was possible to transfer taxation powers by order. I always thought that that needed primary legislation somewhere along the way. I think that, in his reply this evening, my right hon. Friend is now saying that, but intertwined with statements such as "theoretically possible". [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend must not despair when I say that, because it is what he said. He said that it could not be done without primary legislation. He also said that, anyway, the Government had no intention of doing that. I am sure that that is the case, but he was mixing up those matters.
If my right hon. Friend were simply to say, "No, there are no powers in the Bill to transfer taxation by order to the Welsh assembly", we would understand that, and go away happy because that was always our understanding of the constitutional position. He did not quite say that, although he came fairly close. Perhaps he will say it now.

Mr. Ron Davies: If my right hon. Friend had asked me that question, I would have given him an answer. However, he did not ask me that question. I was asked whether it would be possible to do it. The answer to that question must be, in a theoretical sense: yes, of course it is. As I made it clear in this debate, however, that can be done only if primary legislation initially conveyed the


powers to a Treasury Minister. The House's specific approval would then be necessary to transfer the powers to the assembly. It is a theoretical possibility.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that reply. I think, Mr. Jones, that perhaps we should draw this debate to a close. There was considerable meat in my right hon. Friend's speech, and we should perhaps re-examine the matter. It may be possible—in another place, if not in the House—to table a more precise amendment.
On that basis—and on the basis that we have had a very good debate, for which I thank my right hon. Friend—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

FIELDS REFERRED TO IN SECTIONS 22 AND 56.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 209, in page 73, leave out line 18.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Barry Jones): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 158, in page 73, line 28, at end insert—
'11B. Rural affairs.'.

Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State for Wales may think that my speech also is old, boring and tedious, but his criterion for labelling speeches with such words is simply that he fundamentally disagrees with what the other person is saying.
We are not asking for agriculture to be removed from schedule 2—which contains the tasks and responsibilities that will initially be transferred from the Secretary of State—because we have an enduring confidence in the Secretary of State or in the Minister of Agriculture. The Committee has only to consider the worst crisis to hit farming in many years to appreciate that that is not the reason for our amendment. The House has only to consider some of the actions that farmers have resorted to, not only in Wales but across the United Kingdom, to realise that that is not so. The Opposition do not condone those actions—as shown by headlines such as "Farmers Have Been Betrayed", which appeared in the Western Mail as early as 15 January 1998—but we should consider why farmers in Wales have felt that they had to resort to them.
My concern is that some will think that Welsh agriculture has been demoted at Westminster if it is made a responsibility of the assembly—where, undoubtedly, agriculture will be talked about at length. However, talking will not help the farmers. [Interruption.] Did an hon. Member want to intervene? No? So we will hear from Plaid Cymru only sedentary yells—but those also will not help farmers. Action will save farmers' livelihood.
We need a strong voice for Wales at the Cabinet table. In Europe, we need a strong voice fighting for Welsh and British farmers. Devolving responsibility for agriculture will diminish the weight of Welsh farming.

Mr. Wigley: I am pleased to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation. Presumably it was the strong

voice of the Conservative party at the Cabinet table in the past 18 years that landed Welsh agriculture in its current mess. How did he and the Conservative party allow that mess to occur if a strong voice in Cabinet and in Europe provides all the strength?

Mr. Evans: With respect, the right hon. Member was doing better with sedentary interventions. Farmers regard the situation of 12 months ago rather more favourably than they do that under the current Government, who are—amazingly—supported in their actions by the nationalists.
Welsh and other farmers have recently held two demonstrations at the House. In those two demonstrations, because there were so many farmers, it was necessary to hold three meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee in Westminster Hall. On both occasions, farmers asked to speak to the Secretary of State for Wales—which I believe that they did—to make their representations. Under the new regime, to whom will they make their representations? Will it be to the First Secretary? If so, what powers will the First Secretary have to take the farmers' message to Government, where the real clout lies? Will the First Secretary get on the train—the 125—and be the messenger boy of the Secretary of State for Wales?
We fear for the Secretary of State's role in future. It will be a case of his sitting at the end of the Cabinet table and occasionally coughing to try to catch the Prime Minister's attention. It will most certainly be a case of being in office but having no power.
Big decisions will have to be made about the current situation and the future of Welsh farming. Let us first consider the current situation—such as the matter of claiming the European Union compensation package, for which many farmers have been asking. The assembly will not be able to pronounce on that matter, because representations by the Government will be necessary to claim such large amounts.
What of the prospect of Wales going it alone in seeking compensation that the rest of Britain would not receive? Such a plan would not be workable even if it were possible. What of the charges being faced by farmers and by renderers in traceability and hygiene schemes? The assembly will not be able to do anything about those farming matters. Action on those matters will occur only if the Secretary of State were to use his influence with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to change policy.
The assembly would not be able to do anything about the Ministry of Defence's failure to source locally the meat that it buys. The Secretary of State for Wales, however, could use his influence with defence Ministers to try to ensure that that policy was changed.
What will happen with local education authorities? The assembly cannot dictate policy to local education authorities, because that would be reverse devolution, which is quite absurd.
Farmers face the problem of the pound's strength. Will that be the assembly's responsibility, or will it be a responsibility for national Government? As we have already heard that it will be a responsibility of national Government, the issue of transferring that power is a non-starter.
The hot air of debate will not save a single farm, but it will lead to conflict between the assembly, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture. That is all that it will do.
What of the Secretary of State's involvement in the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Ron Davies: Come on.

Mr. Evans: Huffing and puffing—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was accused of doing—is not one of the Secretary of State's endearing charms. If he will simply listen to what I am saying, I am sure that he will agree that farmers need a strong voice in Europe, ensuring that they are not disadvantaged. A strong voice for Wales on agriculture is needed.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Welsh agriculture has distinct problems arising from its own distinctive features—such as the fact that so much of Wales is in a less-favoured area and is reliant on the livestock industry? In those circumstances, should not Wales have a distinct democratic voice? Will not such a voice enhance the role of agriculture in Wales?

Mr. Evans: There are distinct problems in Welsh farming—as there are in farming across the United Kingdom—and it should have a distinct voice. What the heck is the Secretary of State for Wales doing? He should be the distinct voice of Welsh farming. On two occasions, demonstrating farmers came to him to plead that he listen to what they had to say, that he recognise the problems that they were facing in farming in Wales and that he take the problems to the Minister of Agriculture so that Government policy could be changed. Although he has signally failed to be the strong voice for Welsh farmers, we do not want to remove responsibility for Welsh agriculture from him and give it to an assembly.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—perhaps he will be able to calm down and regain his breath. Can he explain why it is so important to exclude agriculture from the devolution scheme, but not to exclude health, education, the environment, transport or any of the other matters that will be devolved? Why does he single out agriculture? Does the fact that he is excluding only agriculture matters mean that he is satisfied with the other parts of the devolution scheme?

Mr. Evans: No, it does not. The Bill has a long way to go—through both Houses of Parliament—and there are whole chunks upon which we must pronounce. I have decided to pick on agriculture because of the European involvement and because of the importance of having a strong voice for agriculture at Westminster and within the EU. Hopefully, we can try to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales that he is in an advantageous position to speak up for Welsh farmers. Looking at the plight of Welsh farmers, one sees that he does not seem to be doing a good job on their behalf.

Mr. Davies: Why does the hon. Gentleman's argument not apply equally to education or health? The relationship that I have with my central Government colleagues is

precisely the same; I have devolved matters, but I am also involved in the development of overall UK policy. The relationship is exactly the same. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to exclude agriculture from the advantages of direct democratic control, but apparently is content to allow education and health to be treated in that way?

Mr. Evans: We are not content with the Bill at all—I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that—but it has a long way to go. We are testing the water through various amendments, and we have seen how the right hon. Gentleman acts when his own Back Benchers try to persuade him. If we were to table amendments to every clause and schedule at this time, we would, no doubt, be accused by the Secretary of State of time wasting.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has failed to answer the question, which I asked as reasonably as I could. In the light of his last comment, is he saying that, in the ideal world, he would seek to delete all of the functions listed in schedule 2?

Mr. Evans: We are trying to limit the powers that the Secretary of State for Wales is trying to give to the assembly. If it were my responsibility—and looking at what the people of Wales are saying—I would not transfer any of the powers from the Secretary of State to the assembly. We ought to make some progress before we deviate too far from the amendments. My comments seem to have caused the Secretary of State much excitement, as he rose to his feet three times. [Interruption.] I wish that the Secretary of State was as vociferous about the plight of the farmers as he is about the amendment.
Farmers need a strong voice for Wales, but it is needed here. The farmers are crying out for help, but are being offered cold comfort. The Secretary of State's inaction must not be misinterpreted as inability to act; unwillingness to act, yes. However, his unwillingness to act on behalf of the farmers will not be compensated by the assembly's willingness to talk.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: That was the most astonishing speech that I have heard during this debate by any Conservative Member. How could the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) come to this House with a straight face—it was a red face—and say that the Conservative Government, who had all the powers he claimed should rest with the Secretary of State, did everything to defend the interests of Welsh farmers? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that all his colleagues representing Welsh constituencies in the last Parliament represented rural constituencies? Does he recognise that every single one of them was swept out on 1 May precisely because he and his colleagues did not stand up for the interests of Welsh farmers?
Astonishingly, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley stated that this Secretary of State for Wales is not going to Brussels to defend the interests of Welsh farmers. How many times did Conservative Secretaries of State cross the threshold to go to Brussels to argue that case? How successful were Conservative Secretaries of State for Wales in influencing agriculture Ministers here in Westminster? I can tell him—they failed every time.
Let me give an example. In 1992, we were discussing the MacSharry reforms, which would have been emasculated under the original proposals by the then Minister of


Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was proposing that the reforms go much further than Ray MacSharry ever wanted. The Minister rejected the principle that Welsh and other farmers should be supported in a particular way. However, the Secretary of State for Wales did not stand up for the interests of Welsh farmers. Ray MacSharry did more for Welsh farmers than any Conservative Minister, and that should be put on the record.

Mr. Evans: Let me interrupt the hon. Gentleman's tirade to remind him that the Conservative party got twice as many votes as the nationalists. Let that be a lesson to him. I wish to ask him a straight question. What difference would the assembly make for Welsh farmers—a practical example, please?

Mr. Jones: I will come to that in a minute. The Committee should have it on record that the hon. Gentleman is claiming that the interests of Welsh farmers were better served by the kind of Administration that he and his colleagues ran than they would be by an assembly. The reason why his colleagues were swept out of those seats in Wales was because they failed. My party now represents four rural areas in Wales. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there was a dramatic shift in those rural areas away from the Conservatives towards Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: Perhaps I could assist the hon. Gentleman in responding to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). One definite way in which the assembly could have assisted farmers is that it would not have permitted the previous Secretary of State for Wales—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—to give £150 million back to the Treasury that could have gone a considerable way towards helping Welsh farmers.

Mr. Jones: That is absolutely right. The Welsh assembly will not transfer £150 million back to the Treasury when there are so many things that we could do with that money in Wales.
I am frankly astonished by the proposal that the Welsh assembly should not be discussing, or even looking at, agriculture. What will Gwilym Jones or Rod Richards be telling people on the doorstep before the assembly elections—because they will be standing for election? Will they tell people that the Conservative party does not want the assembly to talk about agriculture, and that the interests of Welsh farmers can be left to Conservative Secretaries of State for Wales? That is the point that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is making. He has totally failed to understand what has happened in Wales since 1 May. The Welsh people rejected the present system—we want to move forward to a new kind of politics, where the people of Wales set the agenda.
The Secretary of State has indicated on more than one occasion that when the Welsh assembly has responsibility for agriculture, representatives of the assembly will have the opportunity to go to Brussels to argue the case for Welsh farmers. They will have an opportunity to influence events. During the MacSharry proposals, not once did the then Secretary of State go to Brussels to argue the case. Under the new proposals, the assembly will have the

opportunity to have a real input into Welsh and European agriculture. Whether we are talking about the future of the common agricultural policy, the future of agri-environmental payments or an integrated rural policy—so desperately needed in Wales—the assembly will be setting the agenda.

Mr. Evans: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will go to the assembly, but what will he, his hon. Friends, the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends be doing here at Westminster? Surely they should be making representations on behalf of Welsh farmers.

Mr. Jones: That shows that the hon. Gentleman does not understand what happened on 1 May. The people of Wales decided that the system had to be reconsidered. The proposal in the White Paper was that agriculture should be a devolved responsibility, and the people of Wales have since decided that that should happen. Why should the hon. Gentleman tell us that it should not?
The assembly needs to develop agricultural and rural policies for Wales in an integrated, not a disparate way. We support farmers in one way, through the common agricultural policy, but rural development is supported in another, through European structural funds. The assembly will have an important role in developing the idea that some of the structural funds that currently involve no investment in agriculture could be channelled into an integrated rural policy.

The National Assembly for Wales will have an opportunity to develop those ideas alongside others that are being developed elsewhere in Europe. Integration of agricultural and rural investment, probably through revamped structural funds, will give us a more coherent rural development policy. We need to develop along those lines because agriculture is so important for rural employment, and there is so much spin-off employment in other areas. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that, in order to achieve that, we must reject the amendment.

Mr. Swayne: The principal grief that afflicts farmers in my constituency and throughout the kingdom is the current valuation of the pound, which is a direct consequence of the Government's interest rate policy. Until the Welsh assembly has its own interest rate policy or its own currency, or until we all share a European currency, there seems little point in handing over responsibility for agriculture, the fate of which is so inextricably linked to the financial policy of the United Kingdom. There may well come a time when those circumstances prevail, in which case it will be proper to have the Order in Council to transfer responsibility to the assembly; but that has not yet happened.
The scenario painted by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), of all kinds of structural funds being put to the advantage of agriculture in Wales, filled me with absolute horror. What most upset the farmers who came to London last week was the absence of what they called a fair playing field: the thought that farmers in the rest of Europe had access to reliefs and funds to which the British Government were not prepared to allow ours access, for various reasons attendant on the Fontainebleau summit.
The prospect of Wales having access to reliefs and funds to which the rest of the kingdom has no access raises the prospect of an absence of a fair playing field in agriculture within the United Kingdom. Frankly, I do not believe that it is technically possible for that to happen, because the member state at the table in Brussels remains the United Kingdom; but the very fact that such a prospect could be raised highlights the divisiveness of the measure. The amendment should be supported, and agriculture should not be handed to the Welsh assembly.

Mr. Öpik: Having awakened the mighty wrath of Her Majesty's official Opposition earlier, I shall tread carefully and try to repay the compliment by enlightening them on our views on Welsh agriculture. We feel that the Conservative amendment would send a negative statement to a large percentage of residents of rural Wales, and indeed to the geographical majority of the country. The last thing we need at the moment is to make it more difficult for the assembly to help rural Wales. Agricultural concerns need to be addressed directly, especially in the European context.
Environmental considerations have not been sufficiently emphasised. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds recently pointed out that the kite country project in Powys, which has brought an estimated £5.4 million into the mid-Wales economy, supports 114 full-time-equivalent jobs. That is directly relevant to the creation of an integrated rural affairs policy, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones).
The assembly should have rural affairs in its remit, to allow it to support and develop such projects, not piece by piece, but coherently, strategically, in an integrated way, in the interests not only of the economy but of the environment of Wales.
The Bill will abolish the Development Board for Rural Wales and transfer its functions to a new format, under the overarching auspices of the economic powerhouse. That may have benefits or drawbacks, but it makes it all the more important that the assembly should have the specific authority to intervene in the actions of that powerhouse, to ensure that rural considerations are specifically included in its planning.
The amendment would deny the assembly the right specifically to consider issues relating to the rural economy and environment in mid-Wales. It would be a sad and rather irresponsible approach to tie the assembly's hands for a large tranche of its intended constituency of interest.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made an interesting assessment of the competence of the current Secretary of State, but we can all agree that we should not create a political system based on an assessment of an individual's or an individual Government's performance. May I add that it was unhelpful of him to be so personal when we were debating much larger issues.
Whatever we set up should work regardless of the political persuasion of any future Government. It is logical to assume that whoever is elected to the assembly will have been put there by the democratic will of the people of Wales. Like it or hate it, we have to trust that will to decide who should be responsible for the governance of Wales.

Mr. Evans: I still want to know what the hon. Gentleman and other Welsh Members will be doing here,

because the lead Minister will be the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, both here and in Europe. I have seen the hon. Gentleman working with farmers and listening to their concerns; part of his duty is to take that representation from his constituents to the Minister of Agriculture, and not to devolve it away. My great fear is that farming will be isolated and pushed back into Wales, when it is a United Kingdom issue.

Mr. Öpik: The answer is obvious. There are plenty of precedents across the United Kingdom. How does a Member of Parliament interact with his or her local authority? Inevitably there is linkage and overlap. More to the point, there is the opportunity for synergy by operating consistently at different levels of government in the common interest.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Perhaps the true answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), to use a crude, old agricultural expression, is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The only major area of economic activity in Wales that has chosen to devolve itself is agriculture. The break-away was only partial, but, in 1955, the Farmers Union of Wales split from the National Farmers Union. Everyone thought that it would collapse in a few years, but it has lasted 43 years. No trade unions have done it, except the Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru in education. Some voluntary movements have done it, but, in economic activity, only farming has decided to devolve. Is not that the ultimate proof that there is a Welsh dimension to farming? If it was not devolved, we would cut across the industry's own actions.

Mr. Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his insightful intervention. We have two further important examples in response to the question of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. First, the Welsh Office has an agriculture department that mirrors what we are trying to propose, and, through the propositions of the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru push forward. Secondly, the Farmers Union of Wales works with the National Farmers Union in the collective interest of Welsh agriculture. Those organisations overlap, but they work in the strategic interest. During the current crisis in particular, they have created a rural policy. There is no conflict in Westminster representatives discussing agriculture while the Welsh assembly has the authority to make representations, both in Wales and directly to Europe. If we have any faith in democracy, we must believe that good people will do a good job working together.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Robertson: Is there not a contradiction? As I understand it, Ministers will retain responsibility for ensuring that European legislation is implemented. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, agriculture is by and large controlled from Europe, but we are handing agriculture to the assembly. Is not that contradictory?

Mr. Öpik: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the concepts of synergy and a Europe of the regions. By synergy,


I mean that there is no need to think of life in such a linear fashion. Surely he knows about the concept of networking and the benefits of informal contacts, especially between Wales and Europe—even those that exist now. Surely he knows of the desire of some of us to create a Europe of the regions with subsidiarity, through which nations can work together directly, as they do through Europe? I reassure him that, despite the fears of his colleagues—I am not sure whether he shares them—Europe is a project not to centralise power but to devolve it. The sooner Conservative Members recognise that, the sooner they can put to bed the monsters under their passports, their fears of a more coherent whole.
Let me conclude with the simple observation that much of Wales is dependent on the money that flows around because of agriculture and other rural industries. It would be not only a mistake to prevent the Welsh assembly from operating in agriculture, but an abdication of responsibility. More than that, it would be a snub to the many people who have maintained the Welsh economy and culture for so many decades. That is why we support making a clear statement to the people of Wales that we care about Welsh agriculture. We should enable the assembly to do the same.

Mr. Ron Davies: I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on his thoughtful and constructive contribution. Given the unprecedented onslaught on him during the previous debate, it was a speech of great clarity and vision. He is growing in stature by the hour as a parliamentarian of renown.
In an earlier debate, I laid down the general principles that underlie the Government's approach to schedule 2. I shall not go through it all again, but I shall touch on one element later. Schedule 2 lists the fields in respect of which I am required to consider functions for transfer to the assembly. The Opposition amendment seeks to remove agriculture, forestry, fishing and food from it. That would deprive the assembly of a major area of consideration of the transfer of functions.
When the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) introduced the debate, I asked him to explain why he had singled out agriculture when he was content, at least for the purposes of this amendment, to allow health and education to be devolved to the assembly. He gave no reason. He owed it to the House to explain why agriculture was singled out. Unfortunately, he did not. He tacitly admitted that he wanted all the matters in schedule 2 to be withheld. We must conclude that this is a wrecking amendment—another manifestation of the Opposition's inability to come to terms with the fact that there will be devolution, that the Bill lays down the process by which legislation will take place, and that schedule 2 highlights the areas that I will consider for transfer of power to the assembly. I shall try to assist the hon. Member for Ribble Valley and his colleagues.
Agriculture is partly devolved. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised this matter. It would be a courtesy to the Committee if he would listen to my reply because he will presumably have to advise Members whether he wishes to pursue the amendment to a vote or withdraw it. I ask him to extend the courtesy normally expected in these circumstances.
Some agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Office. The expenditure for it comes out of the Welsh block. Many other aspects of agriculture are not devolved. The Minister of Agriculture takes the lead on matters such as reform of the common agricultural policy. There is no discretion at Welsh level to exercise those responsibilities differently in Wales from their exercise in England or Scotland. Schedule 2 deals with the devolution to the assembly of the matters for which I am responsible, not the wider ones for which the Minister of Agriculture is responsible. I shall give positive examples of where the assembly would serve Wales well in such matters.
First, I shall deal with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who, on Second Reading, asked about the extent to which the transfer order would relate to animal health and food safety. I said then that it was likely that the transfer order would not transfer my powers on animal health and food safety to the assembly. Last Wednesday, he raised the matter again. I am anxious that he should not be misled about the current position. The Government have not reached a final decision on the matter. We are discussing it, as I said earlier. As the Committee already knows, the general policy is that virtually all my functions should be transferred to the assembly. While there are sensitive and difficult questions relating to them, such as whether joint powers should be split so that the assembly can operate them separately for Wales, the present position is that the Government are considering transferring them to the assembly. There will need to be a concordat so that the powers are exercised in a manner sympathetic to their exercise at English level, by the Minister of Agriculture, and at Scottish level. I should be willing to consider any written representations from my hon. Friend or other hon. Members if they feel particularly strongly about the matter. I reassure him that we have not yet reached a decision.

Mr. Rowlands: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. When we discussed the matter on previous occasions, he was clear that the powers in section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990, under which meat on the bone was banned, would not be devolved. Do I take it from his remarks tonight that he is rather more open on that possibility? I was curious to find out that a Secretary of State for Scotland may well have such powers under the Scotland Bill. A Scottish Parliament might not support a ban on meat on the bone. Is my right hon. Friend now less decisive than he was, because I thought that he had ruled out the possibility of food safety legislation becoming a devolved function?

Mr. Davies: I most certainly did not rule it out. If my hon. Friend looks at the form of words I used on Second Reading, he will see that I left the option open. His analysis of the Scottish position is quite right, because the Scottish Parliament could go its own way because the Scottish scheme of devolution is different from our own.
The general principle is that many of the powers relating to agriculture are exercised jointly between myself, as the Minister responsible for agriculture in Wales, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have to decide the extent to which such powers will either be devolved to the assembly or remain with that Ministry. We must also consider whether there are


circumstances when it would be better for those powers to be exercised concurrently, as we debated about four hours ago. There may be a case for that if it is felt that schemes operating in England and Wales on food safety or animal health should be exactly the same. The Government have not made any resolution on those matters yet, and we are considering them collectively.
It is my wish that any scheme for agriculture should be as clear as possible. If some relevant powers are devolved to the assembly, we need to establish a good working relationship between it and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or the Department of Health, to ensure that powers are used sympathetically and consistently in England and Wales. We are considering that at the moment.

Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is a split in current responsibilities and that there is a need to clarify exactly what powers should go to the assembly and which should remain with the Secretary of State. That is an important consideration. He will be aware that if Welsh Members write to MAFF about dairy quotas or the sheepmeat regime—matters of great importance to Wales—those letters are directed to his office because he has responsibility for such matters in Wales. When those matters are discussed in Brussels, however, it is invariably the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who negotiates on our behalf.
That is why it is important that the Secretary of State should confirm that Members of the National Assembly of Wales will be able to be part of the United Kingdom team in Brussels so that those who make representations on behalf of Wales are there to give evidence.

Mr. Davies: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not respond immediately to that question. I will deal with the European perspective later.
Amendment No. 158, the terms of which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) outlined, proposes that a new responsibility relating to rural affairs should be included in schedule 2. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I take it that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the internal architecture of the assembly either gives expression to the concept of an integrated approach to rural affairs or places a requirement on the assembly to ensure that it adopts a more coherent approach when delivering policy. I am entirely sympathetic to those objectives, but I believe that the amendment proposes the wrong mechanism by laying a duty on the assembly to establish a rural affairs committee or to make rural affairs a policy imperative. It is for the assembly to decide its policy, so I am minded to reject the amendment, although I share the hon. Gentleman's objectives.
I believe that the definition of rural affairs is too broad and it could cover a variety of functions to be included in schedule 2. It is difficult to conceive of all the functions that would be transferred under the terms of that definition. They could include, for example, town and country planning, the environment, agriculture, forestry and fisheries and food. We have already made provision within the schedule to transfer all those functions to the assembly; in that sense, the amendment is unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley moved amendment No.209 and asked what difference it would make if the term

Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food.
were left out of schedule 2. I should like to offer five such examples, which are important. He made great play of the current crisis facing agriculture. It is bit much for the Opposition, who were in power from 1979 to 1997 and who, I have no doubt, were responsible for the mounting crisis in British agriculture, to turn round and expect an incoming Government to resolve in six months all the problems that have been festering in agriculture.
The principal problem is BSE, and there is a good reason why I want to use it to illustrate my argument. I was heavily involved in scrutinising the orders that were passed under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. I am sure that if that secondary legislation had been subject to adequate scrutiny, public pressure would have been brought to bear, and the Government of the day would have been forced to listen to the case that was being made. Unfortunately, in the late 1980s and 1990s, the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a supporter were determined that there would be no public examination of the issues or proper scrutiny of the regulations relating to animal feedstuffs or the disposal of possibly infected animals. As a result of the Bill, all such orders issued under the 1985 Act would be dealt with by the assembly.
Those of us who represent Welsh constituencies were well aware of the widespread public concern about BSE long before it came to such a calamitous conclusion a couple of years ago.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament then. Why did he not do anything about it?

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman cares to go to the Library and asks for a printout of all the motions, parliamentary questions and debates that I initiated on BSE, he will discover that I was the first person to raise it on the Floor of the House, as early as 1989. He will also discover that many motions and questions pressed the Government to acknowledge the severity of the problem. When the hon. Gentleman has informed himself properly about my record on BSE, I will willingly debate the matter with him. I will not go into further detail on that because I want my remarks to keep strictly to the terms of the amendment.
Had we had the opportunity in a Welsh assembly to debate the orders issued under the 1985 Act, I have no doubt that the matter would have been subject to proper public exposure and the scandal of BSE would not have been allowed to develop as it did; the then Government were able to circumvent such scrutiny. That is one example and there are others.

Mr. Ancram: It was all done by order.

Mr. Davies: Of course it was done by order—that is precisely the point. The procedures of the British House of Commons failed to protect the public interest, because those orders could be smuggled through upstairs in Committee or pushed through in the Chamber late at night without the benefit of a vote, and that was what the Government of the day were minded to do.

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No, I want to develop my point. If those matters had been dealt with by a Welsh assembly,


there would have proper public scrutiny and that scandal would not have happened. That is equally true of the problem of radioactive contamination in Gwynedd, which would be better dealt with by the Welsh assembly, because the orders giving effect to powers arising out of the Food and Environment Protection Act are dealt with by means of secondary legislation.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised the question of Europe. There are two important reasons why I resist his amendment. First, there are dozens—hundreds—of pieces of secondary legislation emanating from Europe, and the assembly will have the responsibility for seeing those through. It seems to me inconceivable—

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? It is a serious point.

9 pm

Mr. Davies: If it is a serious point, I shall give way, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that he cannot intervene until I have made my statement. When I have done so, he may have something with which to take issue.
There are hundreds of pieces of secondary legislation giving effect to European decisions and it seems to me inconceivable that the assembly should have responsibility for debating all except those relating to food, to the protection of animal health or human health, or to the implementation of the common agricultural policy. It is vital that the assembly be empowered to deal with those matters; if the amendment were accepted, it would be unable to do so.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have the pleasure to serve on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The precise problem is that there is insufficient scrutiny of statutory instruments in this place. I accept that, but the problem will not be resolved by what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, because there can be no scrutiny of European statutory instruments and, whether scrutiny takes place in Wales or here, the quality will not improve. We have to look at procedures here.

Mr. Davies: I do not like to say this, but the hon. Gentleman is both ignorant and patronising. Scrutiny will be enormously improved if we in Wales have the forum to debate those matters properly. That is the purpose of devolution.
The other point raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon was the question of the delegation. There will be representation from the Welsh assembly within that delegation and, when matters relating to the reform of the common agricultural policy are being discussed, that delegation will be directly informed by the views of the assembly. There may well be a difference of political views, but nothing will be the worse for that. If the particular interests of Wales—upland farming, forestry or marine matters—are represented, that view can be fed in directly. The representative of the assembly will know precisely what is happening, the nature of the British Government's case and the responses of the other

European countries; and all that can be reported back to ensure full and public debate in Wales. The amendment would deny us that opportunity.
There are many other examples, but let me conclude by giving just one—the need for the development of a coherent approach to the countryside, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. A coherent approach means that the needs of the environment must be looked at in the context of agriculture; that the needs of rural communities—health and employment, and so on—must be looked at in the context of agriculture; that planning policies must be informed by the needs of agriculture; that our education and health policies must be informed by the agricultural dimension, which is so important to rural life; and that the development of transport facilities is looked at in the light of agriculture. The amendment would strip agriculture out of that, so that we would not have the opportunity to develop a coherent approach. It is important that we have a proper forum to resolve all those issues.
Let me refer the hon. Member for Ribble Valley back to our debate last week. The hon. Gentleman should pay attention, because I am going to quote him—it is not something I want to do very often, but I shall give him the pleasure on this occasion. He was taxed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who said:
What the hon. Gentleman just said is absolute nonsense.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley replied:
It would not be the first time that I have spoken nonsense, Sir Alan, and I suspect that it will not be the last."—[Official Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1045.]
Tonight, we have had living proof of that.

Mr. Evans: Of course, that was said with an air of jocularity—a sense of humour, which I pride myself on having, but which unfortunately does not appear to be shared by the Secretary of State.
I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. because the transfer of powers under schedule 2 and the crisis facing farming are vital issues. No one in the Chamber doubts that farmers are facing a crisis, with incomes falling by 50 per cent. and the pound strengthening and cheap imports being sucked in. Farmers are looking for help from the Government, but they are not getting it.
The problem is that the deficiency in the Government's policy is being translated into a need to transfer the powers to the Welsh assembly and away from the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not believe that that will serve them well.
The Secretary of State mentioned an interesting aspect of food safety: the possibility that the Government would devolve some food safety matters down to the Welsh assembly. That might, in certain circumstances, allow the Welsh assembly to decide that meat could be served on the bone in Wales. I should be delighted to give way on this point as I suspect that some people in Wales who have been listening to the debate will have understood that matter as I did. I know that the Secretary of State said that he was looking for a good working relationship between the assembly and the food safety policy decided by the Government. If there is a possibility that meat on the bone could be served in Wales, but not in England and Scotland, I should be interested to hear about it.
That reminds me of a story from I was a youngster living in Swansea. Our local authority decided to ban the film, "The Life of Brian", but Llanelli council decided to allow it to be shown. It may come as a surprise to the Secretary of State for Wales, but everyone in Swansea who wanted to see the film, did so; they all went to Llanelli. It was an absurd policy and Swansea gave up its control over the censorship of films. I urge caution on the Secretary of State if that is the sort of policy that he is seeking to devolve down to the assembly.
Does the Secretary of State agree with the answer that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave in a written answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State for Scotland
what advantages in Brussels have accrued to (a) Catalonia, (b) Andalucia and (c) Baden-Württemberg which are not currently available to the Scottish Office in Brussels; and if he will list the special arrangements which exist within the (i) European Commission and (ii) Council of Ministers for dealing with matters relating to devolved legislative entities within member states.
The Secretary of State answered:
From the contacts I have had with the Catalonia and Baden-Württemberg offices, I conclude that these offices have contributed to improving the quality of information available to their regional governments and have helped those governments contribute to their domestic debate on European proposals. Although there are frequent informal contacts between devolved governments and the European institutions, there are no special arrangements for dealing with matters relating to devolved legislative bodies within the Commission and the Council."—[Official Report, 23 January 1998; Vol. 304, c.704.]
That is an important matter to take on board. If the Secretary of State for Wales agrees with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, it means that he is trying to suggest that the devolved assembly will have more power than it really has. That is an extremely dangerous thing to do.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 20A, in page 73, line 19, at end insert '2a. Broadcasting'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 155, in page 73, line 20, after 'culture', insert 'and the arts'.

No. 211, in page 73, line 28, at end insert—
'11A. Public Service Broadcasting'.

No. 212, in page 73, leave out line 35.

No. 221, in clause 33, clause 33, page 21, line 20, leave out
'do anything it considers appropriate to support'

and insert 'promote'.

No. 83, in page 21, line 20, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'reasonable'.

No. 271, in page 21, line 23, after 'historical', insert 'or archaeological'.

No. 205, in page 21, line 24, after language,', insert—
'(ca) variants of the English language used in Wales,
(cb) other languages used in Wales,'.

Mr. Livsey: It is certainly our view that broadcasting is an important medium in Wales. In "My Fair Lady", Rex Harrison said that there were places where English was never heard; he was commenting on the situation in Wales. In Wales itself, there are even places where television is never seen, not even Welsh television. In my constituency, in the towns of Knighton, Presteign and the district of Painscastle, it is impossible to see television from Wales, whether public service television or private sector television. It is possible for farmers to go to the Royal Welsh show, win the prize with their bull and never be able to see that glory on television, because there is no reception. Indeed, my constituents have to watch what goes on in Lincolnshire, but they have not a clue about what happens in Wales. That is one reason why we need powers in the Bill to ensure that it is possible for people living in all parts of Wales to receive clearly, and participate in, television and radio. That is not the case at the moment.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman should not have claimed such ridiculous powers for the assembly. Even in south Wales, where we have a far greater problem, in that far more people are affected by the inability to receive television transmissions, we do not believe that the assembly can resolve the matter. It is just a matter of providing some aerial masts. Indeed, throughout south Wales we cannot receive Channel 4 or Channel 5; we can receive only S4C, and many people living in our English-speaking areas resent that very much. If, like the Welsh nationalists, they were not well behaved, they would probably withhold their licence fees.

Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman is involved in engineering matters, and he must realise that it should not be beyond the wit of the Welsh assembly to get hold of all the engineers and ensure proper reception of television and radio the length and breadth of Wales.
The arguments in this regard are clear. The media define attitudes, and help people to debate and participate in the formation of attitudes. One aspect of the referendum in Wales and the debate that preceded it was that many people who live in Wales, especially in eastern, southern and north-eastern Wales, have their televisions turned in other directions or cannot receive Wales television, and I think—

Mr. Swayne: It was deliberate.

Mr. Livsey: I think that that had an impact on the referendum result, because those people had no chance to listen to any of the debates beforehand. That is especially important.

Mr. Ancram: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he suggesting in amendment No. 20A that the Welsh assembly should pay from its budget for S4C?

Mr. Livsey: No, I am not suggesting that for a moment, and the right hon. Gentleman should not take it that I said


that—I did not. The Welsh assembly needs the power to take decisions relating to broadcasting, which is especially relevant with the onset of digital broadcasting. The continuing issues of television reception, Welsh language programming and future allocation of television and radio franchises are important.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman said that the Welsh assembly should take decisions on broadcasting. Is he saying that it should take decisions but not be obliged to face the financial consequences for those decisions, which should continue to be borne by the Westminster Parliament?

Mr. Livsey: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but, as we heard in a previous debate, the Welsh assembly cannot have tax-varying powers. It will be entirely reliant for finance on the Westminster Parliament, and I am certainly not suggesting what the right hon. Gentleman just said.
Why do we need the assembly to have some decision-making powers relating to, or at least functions of assisting in effecting a better standard of, broadcasting in Wales? Broadcasting affects Wales as a major employer, and operates in the public and private sectors.
The digital revolution was regarded as a solution for many Welsh broadcasting difficulties, such as continuing reception problems and the long-standing frustration that many people experience at being unable, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, to receive Channel 4 in addition to S4C.
As many as 35 per cent. of Welsh viewers will not be able to receive digital services for at least four years after they start. In the early years, problems will be acute in rural areas. Those problems will need political solutions, which the Welsh assembly must be able to provide. For example, rural communities are generally deprived of cable services because operators are reluctant to incur the costs of laying cable in sparsely populated areas. Digital satellite may prove to be the only option, unless action is taken to accelerate the pace of digital terrestrial service provision.

It is vital that the assembly has the power to pressure Westminster to ensure that viewers and listeners in Wales are not penalised. Welsh broadcasting is distinctive, not least because of the Welsh language. The assembly should have the ability to take decisions relating to Welsh language broadcasting and other broadcasting reflecting distinctive Welsh culture. That applies to English language broadcasting and television as much as to Welsh language output.
In 1993, 529 hours of Welsh language programmes were provided by BBC Wales for S4C, free of charge under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, and a total of 1,170 hours were commissioned from independent producers. The assembly must be enabled to protect and shape future broadcasting in Wales.
The amendment proposes not that the assembly assume responsibility for the funding or the setting of funding levels for broadcasting, but that it should have a

recognised voice in matters relating to Welsh broadcasting. These are important issues, but I shall not detain the Committee much longer.
The assembly should also be involved in the allocation of licences for broadcasting, such as independent television franchises, to ensure that Welsh matters are discussed in the allocation process and that Welsh broadcasting remains distinctive. In that respect, our amendment is markedly different from the Conservative amendment, which refers only to public service broadcasting.
Broadcasting is at the core of the evolution of the Welsh language, its culture and co-existing cultures present in Wales. We will support the amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru to add the arts to the functions of the assembly. Broadcasting should indeed be included in the Bill. I apologise for the poor quality of my voice.

Mr. Rogers: We have just heard a typical Liberal speech, telling us what is needed and promising to provide this and that, but when it comes to delivering the goods, where will the money come from? The question is ducked completely, as in a typical Liberal party political broadcast.
The problems of television reception in Wales are engineering problems, and money must be devoted to them if they are to be resolved. No committee or working party will resolve them. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when the Broadcasting Bill went through Parliament, and I do not recall that the Liberal party made any contribution to it.
I support part of the amendments, especially with regard to the Welsh language. The Welsh assembly will, I am sure, be controlled by the Labour party. I am pleased about that, because we will know that the Welsh language will be in safe hands.
I was a member of the old Glamorgan county council when it became Mid-Glamorgan, and a large section of the Welsh-speaking area of Glamorgan was taken away. Lord Heycock, who was the chairman of the education committee, and others had developed the Welsh language schools in south Wales, in the English-speaking areas as well as the Welsh-speaking areas of West Glamorgan. I venture to say that they saved the Welsh language in the English-speaking areas of south Wales. If there is to be any development, it will be in that area.
When Mid-Glamorgan was set up, it was the Labour-controlled council which spent the resources to develop the present Welsh school system. The daughter of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attends a school within it, as do my grandchildren, along with many others.
I should like to see the assembly play a more positive part and be responsible for the development of the Welsh language. It is only in the hands of the people of Wales that the Welsh language is safe. Similarly, it is only by implementing progressive policies and the application of resources that the Welsh language can be not only saved but developed as it now is.
It is no good saying that we would like to do this, that or the other. It is necessary always to devote resources. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and his party would agree to the transfer of the £70 million that is presently provided


to S4C by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I wonder whether that will come out of the Welsh assembly budget. Is that what is wanted, or is there to be a transfer of resources?
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has devoted so much time to an engineering problem that detracts from the main thrust of the amendments—that the Welsh assembly should have more say in the control and development of the Welsh language.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad to take up the most recent remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I agree whole-heartedly with much of what he said. I know that he has taken pleasure and pride in the past that his grandchildren are attending Welsh-medium schools, and are speaking the Welsh language.
I am willing to pay tribute to those such as Lord Heycock, who undertook much work on behalf of the Welsh language in Glamorgan. There were some areas where much progress was made, and others where progress has been slower. There is now, I think, an agreement across party on the Welsh language, and that is good. The issue has to that extent been taken away from some of the more acrimonious politics that existed perhaps two decades ago.
My colleagues and I support amendment No. 20A, for reasons that overlap those advanced by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda that there is a challenge of resources. Technical problems have to be resolved, and obtaining the necessary resources is part of the overall challenge. We would argue that the block of resources that S4C receives from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should be transferred to the assembly. If there is a need for more resources, we would agree that there should be an available option to raise them from taxation. Unfortunately, that is not within the remit of the Bill.
There are things that can be done within the assembly even without the power to raise moneys from taxation. There seems to be an omission from the Bill, in that it contains no power of answerability for any dimension of broadcasting in Wales. I have read the contents of schedule 2, and I look forward to considering schedules 3 and 4. I look also to the powers that are set out in clause 73.
Are there any powers at all whereby the National Assembly can call people from the Broadcasting Council for Wales to answer on matters of public policy on broadcasting in Wales? That is perfectly reasonable. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) took part in consideration of what was the Broadcasting Bill of 1990, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred. Some important debates took place. I know also that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) played a leading role in considering the Bill. There must be a role for the assembly in at least asking questions and initiating a debate on a subject that has an important all-Wales dimension.
I have taken note of some of the bodies that will have an answerability. There are United Kingdom bodies such as the British Tourist Authority, the British Waterways Board and the British Wool Marketing Board. In addition, there are the Environment Agency, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Museums and Galleries Commission and the United Kingdom Sports Council. All

those bodies have a degree of answerability. It seems, however, that the Broadcasting Council for Wales does not. If the Secretary of State wants to intervene to inform me that I am mistaken, I shall be glad to be put out of my misery.

Mr. Ron Davies: The right hon. Gentleman need not labour this point. I want to respond to him specifically when I reply. I think that he will be reasonably reassured by what I have to say.

Mr. Wigley: In that case, I shall not take up any more time on that matter, but instead wait to hear the Secretary of State's comments.
What about the provision of better English language broadcasting in Wales? We have moved the agenda forward considerably on the Welsh language television front, but there is a paucity of English broadcasting, particularly on television, from Wales to Wales, and non-Welsh-speaking viewers are right to complain about it. I would not like English broadcasting to develop at the expense of Welsh language broadcasting, but there is room to co-ordinate existing channels, and perhaps to develop it.
There is a technological revolution under way in broadcasting. There are arguments about the fibre-optic cabling of areas of Wales, which may be the vehicle to provide broadcasting in Wales in future. Offers are out for a fibre-optic link along the north Wales coast. Two companies have bid for Cheshire and bits of north Wales, but there is no strategic approach, and, unless the infrastructure is in place, whole communities will lose out on future technological opportunities.
Amendment No. 155—our amendment—refers to the arts, and is purely a probing amendment. Schedule 1 refers to
culture (including museums, galleries and libraries).
Culture goes way beyond those. It includes them, of course, but one could specify a realm of cultural issues if one were to be inclusive.
The term used by the Government is "national heritage". We have national heritage in Wales, but it does not appear to come through in any full way in the Bill. We tabled the amendment because the arts most certainly should be covered. We are aware that reference is made to the Arts Council of Wales in schedule 3, but I want to be assured that, when referring to culture, we mean the whole gamut of culture, not just a restricted part of it—museums, galleries and libraries.
I refer briefly to the amazing amendment No. 212, tabled by Conservative Members, which wants to leave out all reference to the Welsh language. We heard earlier that Conservative Members want to remove agriculture from the responsibility of the assembly. Now they want to remove the Welsh language.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Conservatives also want to leave out the environment.

Mr. Wigley: We are seeing a deliberate, cynical approach, to try to undermine the assembly lock, stock, and barrel. When the referendum result said yes, albeit by a tight majority, some more enlightened Conservative Members—[Interruption.]—not those who are barracking


from the Back Benches—said, "The people of Wales have made their decision. It's up to us to get the best assembly we can. We may not agree with it, but let's get the best possible animal to meet a legitimate all-Wales agenda." So they start by taking away agriculture, the environment—even the Welsh language. They want the Welsh language to be dealt with by Committees in this place, dominated by Conservative Members, no doubt, from English constituencies, as happened with the Welsh Language Act 1993.
That is the totally cynical approach of the Tory party towards the assembly, lock, stock and barrel. Let the electorate of Wales know that, when Rod Richards, Gwilym Jones and the rest become Tory candidates in the elections, their agenda will be to take everything away. If we are ever again unfortunate enough to have a Tory Government, that is what they will be up to, so the challenge for us is to ensure that the assembly is strong enough to withstand the danger of its being eroded in the way proposed by this cynical amendment.

Mr. Chris Ruane: I wish to address amendment No. 211, which the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has just discussed so vigorously.
My grandfather was a Welsh speaker; seven of his children, 35 of his grandchildren and all but one of his 130 great-grandchildren lost the language. The Welsh language has taken a hammering over the past 70 years, but it is making a comeback. I have been learning Welsh for some four years, and I pay tribute to my Welsh teachers—Margaret Williams, Nesta Ellis and Christine Roberts—for persevering with such a difficult pupil. The desire to learn Welsh is growing in Wales, and Welsh lessons are being held in the House of Commons. Conservative Members are welcome to attend those lessons—I know that they take a keen interest in Welsh affairs—every Thursday at 1 o'clock. It will be interesting to see how many take up that kind offer.
The Welsh language issue is of central importance to the government of Wales, and must be a key responsibility of the Welsh assembly. If it is to flourish, we need a strategic overview, which only the Welsh assembly can provide. It is too important to be left to a quango, a committee or one individual. Its rightful place is in the heart of government, the assembly and Wales. The amendment is an affront to the people of Wales, and it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Evans: The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that the Conservatives were cynically trying to wreck the assembly. We are not; we are trying to improve the Bill, which is what the Committee stage is all about. Hon. Members should not misinterpret our objectives whenever we table an amendment. We simply want to improve the legislation.
I am certain that, if Rod Richards decides to stand—he has made no announcement that he intends to do so—he and Gwilym Jones, who has announced that he will stand, will win seats, and will be joined by colleagues representing the Conservative party. More importantly, they want to ensure, on behalf of the three out of four people in Wales who did not support this legislation,

that the Government are sensitive to the needs of the Welsh people, as the Prime Minister said on the steps of 10 Downing street the day after the referendum result. It is important that we get that absolutely right.
This group of amendments deals with broadcasting, the Welsh language, and Welsh arts and culture. Our friendly probing amendments seek clarification. Apparently broadcasting will not be the responsibility of the Welsh assembly, and we want to know the thinking behind that. We have been accused of trying to take responsibilities away from the assembly—[Interruption.] In time, I will swap places with the Secretary of State, who has just suggested that I take his place. Why is broadcasting being kept out when so much else is being transferred?

Mr. Ron Davies: There is a simple and straightforward answer: the principle that underlies the whole of devolution is that the powers that currently rest with me will be transferred to the assembly. I have no responsibility for broadcasting, so it follows that we have no proposals to transfer broadcasting to the assembly.

Mr. Evans: That is the first acceptable answer in our three-day debate. However, there is a conflict between responsibility for the Welsh language, which is transferred in schedule 2, and responsibility for broadcasting. As has been noted, we have tabled an amendment to that provision.
We must have clarification of this issue; otherwise, enormous difficulties will arise between the assembly and Sianel Pedwar Cymru. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asked who will pay for Sianel Pedwar Cymru if the assembly controls it, as the Liberal Democrats would like. Many people would find it odd if the assembly was responsible for it, but did not take responsibility for the financial controls. That television station was set up in 1980 by the Conservatives, and it has been expanding its remit with digital television, which will shortly be upon us.
Before I go any further, I want to pay tribute to Lord Roberts, who is a former Minister. He was second to none in his promotion of the Welsh language throughout Wales. He managed that without raising the hackles of people who do not speak Welsh. The matter could have been divisive if it had been handled wrongly. We should not underestimate his gift for promoting the Welsh language, because, if handled improperly, it could be a problem. I pay tribute to his deft handling of the issue. We need his sensitivity for this legislation, because there could be conflict.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman has paid a well-deserved tribute to Lord Roberts. He asks us to support his amendment, which would prevent functions relating to the Welsh language from being transferred to the Welsh assembly. Does Lord Roberts agree with that proposal?

Mr. Evans: I spoke to Lord Roberts about five hours ago, and he was delighted when I told him that I intended to pay him that tribute. Yes, he agrees with the amendment. The Welsh language was afforded protection under the current arrangements without the help of a Welsh assembly. Lord Roberts supports the amendment


that we have tabled, and is happy with the way in which the House has promoted and protected the Welsh language. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) may be privy to information that we do not have, but I am merely telling the House of the conversation that I had with Lord Roberts earlier today.
We are told that the assembly will be a cure for everyone's evils. I suspect that, in a short time, just as every household will be able to get all the television pictures it wants from wherever it wants, we will all be speaking Welsh.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: If the hon. Gentleman spoke to Lord Roberts five hours ago, that was during the debate, and I did not see him leave.

Mr. Evans: That was because the hon. Gentleman did not see me come into the Chamber. When he arrived, I was making some notes on the speeches that I shall make later. I am delighted that my every movement is being tagged by the nationalists. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I had that conversation.
It will be interesting to see whether the Welsh assembly will deliver what has been claimed for it. I urge the Government's supporters, the nationalists and the Liberal Democrats to be cautious and not to build up the assembly's reputation too much, or expectations will be so high that people will feel let down if it does not deliver on the central, key propositions.
The assembly could allow Sianel Pedwar Cymru or another station to broadcast its proceedings. That would no doubt fill the people of Wales with great anticipation. It would probably be more depressing than "EastEnders" and less transfixing than the test card. I suspect that the Government will not allow that function to be transferred, but we need clarification, particularly on Sianel Pedwar Cymru, because it wants to know about its future.

Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman does not have to suspect: it is clear that the Bill contains no provision for such a transfer.

Mr. Evans: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has clarified that. I suspect that the people who work at Sianel Pedwar Cymru also want to know that.
A conflict may arise because of the Welsh language content in Sianel Pedwar Cymru programmes. Does the Secretary of State envisage any conflict between Sianel Pedwar Cymru and the assembly, given that responsibility for the Welsh language is being transferred? How would such conflicts be resolved?

Mr. Ron Davies: I do not envisage any conflicts, so there would be no need to resolve them.

Mr. Evans: There are all sorts of things that the Secretary of State may think may not happen, but hon. Members should consider what will happen once an assembly has been set up with 60 members, including nationalists who may be operating on their own agenda. The Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Minister must forgive me if we envisage a worst-case scenario in certain respects. It is all very well to sit here looking through rose-tinted spectacles and believing that everything will be all right when the assembly has been

set up, but, unless we legislate with a view to the worst case scenarios, there will be horrific problems in the future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Looking across at the hon. Gentleman, we are viewing the worst-case scenario.

Mr. Evans: I am delighted to hear from the Minister, but, if that is his only contribution, I should have preferred him to continue to sit where he is sitting and to say absolutely nothing, as he has for most of the debate.
I fear that there may be conflicts in the future, and I should like them to be sorted out.

Mr. Nick Ainger: What are the problems?

Mr. Evans: I have already described the problems that may affect Sianel Pedwar Cymru, with its Welsh language remit. A large proportion of what is broadcast is in Welsh, and, indeed, 61 per cent. of Welsh speakers spend half their time watching the channel. The Welsh assembly will see that it has an important role to play, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take that into account.
Amendments Nos. 221 and 83 are intended to tidy up clause 33, which gives the assembly carte blanche to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the Welsh language, the arts, crafts, sport, and so forth. We want the promotion of those places and activities to be clarified, and to be made reasonable.
Will the Secretary of State tell us what limitations there may be on the assembly in regard to future expenditure, and the actions that the assembly may take? If, for instance, the assembly decided to set up and sponsor its own lottery, operating only in Wales, to support some of the places and activities that I have mentioned, would it be able to establish such a competing lottery? If not, what would it be able to do for that purpose?
The financial aspects are important. We are told that the assembly will have no tax-varying powers—

Mr. Ron Davies: I can help the hon. Gentleman. The assembly will have no legislative powers, and will therefore not be able to legislate to create a statutory lottery like the one we now have.

Mr. Evans: As the Secretary of State will know, a lottery called Pronto has already been set up to support something. I want to know whether the assembly, with no legislative powers, would be able to back a lottery that would compete with the national lottery.
Will there be any limitations in the support of those activities? Local authorities in Wales will want to know. The assembly will be given money to hand to authorities; if it starts to take some of that money to itself, and to spend it to support such activities, authorities will have to make up the amount themselves somehow.
The Secretary of State has told us that the assembly will have no tax-varying powers, but local authorities may have to make up the shortfall by raising the council taxes paid by people living in Wales. Until the Secretary of


State can give us the answers, the people of Wales will fear that tax increases will be brought in through the back door.

Mrs. Betty Williams: I oppose amendment No. 212 which proposes to leave out on page 73, "The Welsh language". To seek to remove that is a gross insult to the people of Wales, Welsh speaking or non-Welsh speaking, and to the intelligence of hon. Members. When I saw the proposal to remove the Welsh language from the functions of the Welsh assembly, I could not believe my eyes. Perhaps I am naive in thinking that the Conservative party has at last realised that the Welsh language exists, but if Opposition Members have come to that view, I applaud them.
Last week and today, we have spent many hours discussing social services, agriculture, health, rural affairs and many other issues. The one issue that is unique to Wales is the Welsh language. It is not a matter for Scotland, Northern Ireland or England and it is a gross insult to the people of Wales for anyone to suggest that iaith y nefoedd, the language of heaven, should not be a function of the assembly.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said about my predecessor, now Lord Roberts of Conwy. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of lying, but I hope that he and his hon. Friends paid attention to what Lord Roberts said in the past couple of weeks and that they will take his advice. I doubt whether Lord Roberts has said that he thinks that the Welsh language should not be a function of the national assembly of Wales.
In an Adjournment debate on Thursday, hon. Members spoke about the power cuts at Christmas and the central issue of communications. Hon. Members related the problems that were faced by the people of north Wales in trying to get people on the other end of the telephone to understand the problems and to recognise the parts of north Wales that were affected. Of all functions, the Welsh language is the one which should be included. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) presented an entirely one-sided picture when he spoke about a Wales in which hundreds of thousands of people were thwarted by geography and engineering problems and unable to satisfy their demand for Welsh television. Perhaps I could set the record straight by relating the experience of my family, which is as Welsh as any of those who are sitting below the Gangway. They hail from Y Fenni in Monmouthshire, but moved there from Abergwaun in Pembrokeshire.
The family are beset by all sorts of geographical and engineering problems, but of a different kind because they do not want to receive Welsh television; they want to receive television from the rest of the kingdom. They have used their ingenuity, initiative, skill and engineering

ability to overcome the problems. They did not sit back and bleat in the expectation that an assembly with vast funds at its disposal would solve the problems for them.

Mr. Ron Davies: rose—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: rose—

Mr. Davies: Perhaps my hon. Friend will seek to intervene if he feels the need to speak on this matter.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) when he moved his amendment. There is obviously a strong case for broadcasting to be included in the assembly's responsibilities. Broadcasting is important in Wales and there is a distinctive broadcasting agenda.
As I said to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) in an intervention, the starting principle for devolution was the need to transfer to the assembly the powers currently vested in me. Broadcasting is not one of the powers invested in me, so the Government decided that it would not be appropriate to make that fairly substantial shift of responsibility from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Welsh Office. That is why the Bill does not contain a provision for broadcasting to be transferred to the assembly.
I can tell the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who raised this particular point with me, that substantial broadcasting responsibilities will go to the assembly. For example, there will be a general power to debate, and that will extend to making representations. I have no doubt that the assembly will want to exercise that power in respect of the Welsh institutions of the BBC, S4C and HTV.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether the general powers to which he referred will be fine tuned so that specific powers are given to the assembly to call people to give evidence or to answer questions? Will it be in the assembly's power to invite people from the world of broadcasting, especially from the Broadcasting Council for Wales, to give evidence before a committee of the assembly?

Mr. Davies: There will be a general power to invite any bodies or persons that the assembly sees fit to invite. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) finds it amusing that people in Wales should want to consider the quality of our broadcasting. I assure him that it is an important matter.

Mr. Ancram: rose—

Mr. Davies: I will give way in a moment, but first I want to reply in full to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon.
The power of summons will not be given, but the power to invite certainly will be. There will also be additional functions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will consult the assembly about broadcasting appointments in Wales, just as he consults me at present. It will be a statutory provision. We will introduce an order under clause 31 specifying the members of S4C and the BBC national governor for Wales as appointments about which the assembly must be


consulted. In addition, we will ensure that the concordat that will be agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will cover other broadcasting issues of special relevance to Wales.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman rightly extolled the virtues of Welsh television broadcasters. I understand that they do not presently fall within his remit or sphere of influence. However, he is talking about only the first draft order before the first elections for the Welsh assembly. Will he say whether, after that, he would be prepared to transfer broadcasting to the assembly?

Mr. Davies: Certainly I have no proposals, and neither do the Government, to do so. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because we debated the matter at some length earlier, clause 21 provides a mechanism for that, if the Government of the day so wish. The assembly will be a substantial body. Broadcasting is adequately dealt with within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and I have no proposals for it to be devolved to the assembly.
In view of the endorsement of our proposals in the general election and in the referendum, the Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 20A and 211. On amendment No. 221, the draft transfer of functions order rightly implies that the assembly should have responsibility for the Welsh language. It is of great importance in Wales and it is right that the assembly should have responsibility for it. Indeed, I was amazed by the Opposition's proposal that one of the specific functions that the Welsh assembly should not be given is responsibility for the Welsh language.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley about Lord Roberts. I have to tell him that there is enormous admiration, on both sides of the Committee, for the work that Lord Roberts did in fathering the Welsh Language Act 1993 and piloting it through the House. If the hon. Gentleman wants to learn any lessons from Lord Roberts, one should be how to approach the question of devolution.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley has accepted that the people of Wales have voted for devolution. He has accepted also that the House's role is now to ensure not that devolution is somehow blocked or frustrated but that we all combine as best we can to ensure that the legislation that ultimately emerges from the process is the best possible legislation and that the assembly, once established, is the best possible assembly. I have no doubt that if he discusses that with Lord Roberts, he will find that that is the one very clear message which Lord Roberts wishes to give to the Conservative party.

Mr. Evans: When the Bill goes to the other place, will the Secretary of State have a word with his noble Friends to ensure that they consider very carefully any amendments to the Bill tabled by Lord Roberts?

Mr. Davies: In the other place, unlike this Committee, everyone listens to what everyone else says.
I shall now deal with amendments Nos. 221 and 83. The wording of clause 33, on what the assembly can achieve, is realistic. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about the use of the word promote. Using "promote" would lead to confusion. The word appropriate is the correct one in the context of the clause.
There may be many instances in which the assembly might be sympathetic to a cause and think it reasonable to offer support. However, it might remain inappropriate for it so to do. There are many worthwhile causes, such as health, education, social services and the environment. However, I suspect that without unlimited resources, which the assembly clearly will not have, it will frequently find itself in situations in which it considers it reasonable but not appropriate to support activities.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred specifically to clause 33 and asked about limitations. The only limitation is the provision in the Bill that
The assembly may do anything it considers appropriate".
"Appropriate" is an inherently limiting term. It indicates what a public body should do—for example, supporting an exhibition or purchasing a manuscript—and what it should not do, such as buying a front row for rugby games. Inserting "reasonable"—which is the point of amendment No. 83—misses the point.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about the lottery. Support includes financial support, but the cost of using clause 33 will fall to the assembly and will have to be met from the Welsh block. In direct answer to the question that he asked about a lottery, the assembly cannot establish a lottery. Operation of lotteries is strictly controlled by primary legislation. As I told him, in the absence of primary legislation, the assembly will not be able to sponsor a lottery.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I hope that the Minister will have time to deal with Plaid Cymru's amendment No. 205, which specifically refers to the need to support not only the Welsh language but those variants of the English language that are in common use in Wales. I am thinking particularly of dialects of the English language such as that used in parts of Swansea, where everyone says "clar-eye-fi-ca-tion".

Mr. Davies: I will reflect on that point, although I cannot guarantee that I will table an amendment to deal with it.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned amendment No. 205, and the Committee considered also amendment Nos 155 and 271. All I can say is that schedule 2 lists the fields in which I must consider transferring functions to the assembly.
The only statutory function that I have in the arts—the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon and other hon. Members—is specified in section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which concerns policy directions to the Arts Council of Wales on the use of lottery funds. I have a range of other functions, but that is the only statutory function.
There is provision in clause 33 for the assembly to do anything that it considers appropriate to support museums, art galleries or libraries; buildings of historical, architectural or archaeological interest; the Welsh language and arts; and crafts, sport and other cultural activities. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Member for Caernarfon. Clause 33 really is a very wide provision.
Clause 33(d), dealing with cultural activities, would cover any support that the assembly considered appropriate to foster languages other than the Welsh language that are in use in Wales. I am not sure whether the Swansea English dialect would fall into that category, although I have already assured my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that I shall closely examine the matter.
I hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire—who tabled the amendment—will reflect on the fact that we have had a reasonable debate. There are sound reasons why the Government have introduced the legislation as it is. The assembly is properly empowered, and I would not wish it now to be given the message that the Committee was divided on the extent of its powers to deal with culture and other matters.

Mr. Livsey: I have heard what the Secretary of State has said, particularly in relation to broadcasting in Wales. We have had a substantial and constructive debate, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in schedule 2, page 73, line 19, at end insert—
'2B. Council of the Isles issues.'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 159, in schedule 2, page 73, line 22, at end insert—
'5A. European affairs.'.

Mr. Wigley: The amendment raises the question of the council of the isles, which has come on to the agenda since the Bill was published. I would be glad to know the Government's thinking on the matter.

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Questions necessary to dispose of the remaining proceedings on schedule 2, clauses 23 to 29, schedule 3 and clauses 30 to 44, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [20 January].

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 23

TRANSFERS: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendments made: No. 137, in page 13, leave out line 23 and insert
'only with the agreement of, or after'.

No. 138, in page 14, line 31, leave out
'concurrence or subject to the consent or approval'
and insert 'agreement'.

No. 139, in page 14, line 36, leave out
'concurrence of or subject to the consent or approval'
and insert 'agreement'.

No. 140, in page 14, line 41, leave out 'Scottish Minister' and insert
'member of the Scottish Executive'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 24 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 30

POWER TO IMPLEMENT COMMUNITY LAW

Amendment made: No. 141, in page 19, line 25, at end insert 'designating the Assembly'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 31 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

To report progress and ask leave sit again.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That Mr. David Rendel be discharged from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Mr. David Chidgey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Protected Tenants (Rent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Ms Karen Buck: I begin with a brief disclaimer: if I live to be 100, and think of nothing else for the rest of my life, I shall never acquire the knowledge on the subject of my Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend the Minister has, so I introduce it with some humility. I hope that I do not make him cringe too much with any errors of fact, as I tread through a complex field of housing and law.
I appreciate the Government's awareness of the issue, both as a national concern and as it affects my constituency. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the fact that he has met some of the people about whom I intend to talk, and has heard their concerns at first hand. I thank him for his interest in, and knowledge of, the subject. I congratulate the Association of Regulated Tenants Associations, and various other private tenants' groups and workers in this sector, who have helped many vulnerable individuals and documented their story.
I want to place on the record some of my constituents' experiences in Kensington and Chelsea and in Westminster, and to plead for sympathetic consideration of their plight. My constituency has one of the highest proportions of private sector tenants in the United Kingdom—they are heavily concentrated in places such as Maida Vale, St. John's Wood and Regent's Park—but there are 300,000 protected tenants throughout the country. I believe that there are about 85,000 pensioner households in London in unfurnished accommodation, many of which will fall into the category of protected tenants.
The sector undoubtedly has a major contribution to make to housing supply, but it has some severe weaknesses that need redress. As usual, what is true for the country as a whole is magnified here in central London. The value of privately rented accommodation is that it offers flexibility for people who need housing, perhaps because of changes in employment or personal circumstances, and for whom the permanence of a house purchase, for example, would not be appropriate. It also offers housing opportunities for those who may be unable to obtain a mortgage or who cannot access the social rented sector.
There is no doubt that renting a home in the private market is for many people an important, often an ideal, option. The problems on which I intend to concentrate tonight concern the substantial minority of tenants who have sought not flexibility but security in the private rented sector. Some sought security of tenure, as implied by their original leases or tenancy agreements, while others had a reasonable expectation of financial security when agreements were entered into, sometimes 40 or 50 years ago.
I want to draw attention to an injustice done to householders who entered into agreements in good faith. They believed that those agreements enabled them to invest and plan for the future and that they could build a family home; but those agreements have turned out to be effectively worthless, as rents have soared, sometimes by

hundreds of percentage points. Investment in homes, sometimes running to tens of thousands of pounds, has counted for nothing.
Assurances given at the time of the Housing Act 1988 have been rendered null and void by practices adopted in recent years. That legislation had among its aims the transformation of the rented housing market. There was a clear expectation that rents would rise for new tenants, but that was balanced by the stated exemption for tenants who entered into agreements before the commencement of that Act, such as regulated tenants under the Rent Act 1977. In fact, the shift towards market rents for pre-1988 protected tenants has in recent years had a dramatic and devastating effect.
Not only have landlords forced the pace towards market rents for protected tenants, but rent officers—and especially rent assessment committees—have exacerbated the process. That has especially been the case since the Spath Holme judgment in 1995, which changed the basis of rent officers' determinations. As a result, landlords are requesting substantial two-yearly increases, which are often raised by rent officers. Ironically, sometimes rent officers raise rents to forestall excessive rises at the appeal stage. When cases go to appeal, further huge increases are often imposed by rent assessment committees.

Maria Eagle: Is my hon. Friend aware that such problems exist not only in London but in Liverpool and many other places? In one instance in my constituency, a rent officer accompanying a landlady, who was given the full 100 per cent. increase for which she asked, told her that she should be able to obtain more. As a result, the landlady appealed against the assessment, despite getting 100 per cent. of what she asked for, and got a further increase. The 85-year-old tenant, who had lived in the property all her life, has been in hospital ever since. The problem seriously affects vulnerable and elderly tenants.

Ms Buck: That is exactly the sort of the case that I shall discuss. My hon. Friend confirms my argument. She mentioned appeals. Of 703 cases heard in London in the first quarter of 1996, the rent assessment committee found in favour of the tenant in only 14 per cent. of cases. In more than 60 per cent., it increased the rent recommended by rent officers. It is hardly surprising that the rent determination process is viewed with the deepest cynicism by my constituents or that the secretive and unaccountable rent assessment committees are regarded as heavily loaded in favour of landlords.
I want to tell the stories of some my constituents, stories that are shot through with a sense of betrayal and anger, both at the role of landlords and at the rent assessment procedure, and with a great deal of human misery. A lady tenant of the Eyre estate in St. John's Wood wrote:
My husband, who is 77 and has Parkinson's Disease, myself and my two children have lived in this house for 29 years … from the beginning, we treated this house as our home; installed heating; rewired; put a new roof on the house … yet since 1980, the rent has increased by 900 per cent … It is definitely time for the market to come to a halt so people like us do not have to worry ourselves to the grave about rents".
Another gentleman wrote:


In 1990, my rent was £4350 per annum. By 1994 it had increased to £8200. At the next registration the landlord asked for £11,600 and was granted this figure by the Rent Officer. Notwithstanding this the landlord still objected to the rent and I had to face the Rent Assessment Committee … At the hearing, the landlord asked for £35,000 per annum and the Rent Assessment Committee assessed the rent at £17,000.
My constituent says that he managed to cope, but many other tenants have not. They have been forced out, sometimes into old people's homes as many are pensioners.
To add appalling insult to injury, when tenants go, they are often landed with dilapidation charges, compounding their fears. One gentleman wrote to advise me of a 79-year-old neighbour who left his home because he could not afford the rent increases. He had two disabled children as well as a dependent elderly wife. The landlords demanded £35,000 from him on leaving the property.
The person involved in the final example out of many that I could have quoted wrote:
When I first moved in in 1976, my rent was £1,600 per annum. It is now £13,650—a rise of 753 per cent … the high capital investment I have made, and the tough lease terms were acceptable at the time because we had the security of a protected tenancy, low rents, phasing in of rent increases and the right of my children to live in this house when I die. Without these advantages, I would never have taken the lease and invested all that time and money … No-one would have done so. It is, therefore, no surprise that we now feel cheated.
Again and again comes the message, "We have been betrayed."
The vulnerability of my constituents is heightened by the booming London property market, which adds both to market pressures on rents and to pressure to turn rental properties into corporate or holiday lets or sales. Last week, one private tenants' rights worker told me that she was about to represent a tenant in a block where the quoted market rents ranged from £515 a week to £1,350 a week. Another told me of a case where the rent was increased from £10,000 per annum in March to £17,000 in December following the decision in the Court of Appeal in the Curtis case.
The effects of such increases can be summarised simply—communities of rented homes are breaking up. The number of Eyre estate tenants in St. John's Wood has plunged below 100. Many of those communities are made up of people who moved in years ago, sometimes before the second world war. They are established communities which are part of London life, but they are being destroyed.
Properties are sold, often into the international property market because of the demands of that sector in central London, and they are being turned into corporate and holiday lets. That is helping to turn parts of the inner city into a desert. That is in direct contrast to the aims of our social exclusion unit, which seeks a mixed residential pattern in our inner cities.
Pensioners and others on fixed incomes are living in terror. They are unable to pay rent increases, but virtually unable to leave homes that they may have occupied for decades. Many of them are just above the housing benefit level and therefore have to absorb the full cost of the charges placed on them. However, many others are on housing benefit, so the excessive demands of landlords, supported by a rent assessment committee decision, is transferring much of that cost on to the public purse through housing benefit.
My hon. Friend the Minister has been asked to consider several options, including the use of section 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to restrict increases in rent. He has also been asked to consider a rent cap linking rent increases to the retail prices index plus a given percentage; a thorough review of rent assessment committees to ensure impartiality between landlords and tenants' interests; and the restoration of succession rights where they form part of the original lease.
I should greatly welcome any sign that my hon. Friend is able to give tonight as to the Government's thinking on the problems I have outlined and their possible solutions. Above all, I should welcome his recognition of the urgency of the matter. Every passing week results in more of my constituents being forced out of their homes. It is adding to the toll of families forced to leave their homes and of pensioners made homeless or living in constant fear of debt and homelessness. Those people are an integral part of the inner-London community and I hope that we shall soon be able to lift at least a portion of the burden that they bear.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the Adjournment debate and using it to raise such an important matter. She has highlighted a number of cases of steep rent increases, which have caused anxiety and hardship to people who have long been residents in her area. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) intervened to highlight the extent to which it is not just a problem encountered in London, but in other parts of the country.
Both my hon. Friends will know that the Government are very concerned about the disproportionate increases that some regulated tenants have faced in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North has been in correspondence with my Department about the plight of some of her constituents and will be aware that we have been looking to see what can be done to help tenants who face such problems.
Before I outline the possible measures that we are exploring, it might be helpful if I summarise the background to the setting of fair rents and why they have increased significantly in recent years.
When the Housing Act 1988 introduced assured tenancies at market rents for all new lettings from January 1989, existing tenants' rights to security of tenure and rent control were not changed. Those regulated tenants and their landlords have the right to have a fair rent registered for the tenancy by an independent rent officer. Both also have a right to appeal to a rent assessment committee if they are dissatisfied with the rent officer's decision. The registered rent is the maximum rent the landlord can charge and it cannot normally be re-registered for two years.
When assessing fair rents, rent officers and rent assessment committees must follow the rules laid down in section 70 of the Rent Act 1977. That requires them to take into account the age, character, locality and state of repair of the dwelling but to disregard any premium resulting from a scarcity of similar accommodation in the area. A fair rent is therefore what a landlord could achieve in a market in which the supply of and demand for


accommodation are in balance. Rent officers cannot take a tenant's or a landlord's personal circumstances into account.
Until the introduction of assured tenancies, there was little evidence of open-market rents because of rent control, so rent officers and rent assessment committees tended in the past to determine fair rents using the evidence of their own previous decisions. Before 1989, when there was no evidence of decontrolled market rents, that was the only practicable approach. More recently, it has been possible to determine fair rents by starting from the market rent and subtracting any element due to scarcity.
The way in which rent officers and rent assessment committees determine fair rents was the subject of a Court of Appeal case in 1995—Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Panel v. Spath Holme. The effect of the judgment was to give more weight to the market rent less the scarcity method of rent determination. That approach has been reaffirmed in a series of subsequent judgments, most recently the Curtis case, which came before the Court of Appeal in October 1997. Changing to that method has caused fair rents to rise steeply. Increases in recent years have been well above increases in the retail prices index over the same period. In some areas, particularly but not exclusively in London, increases on re-registration have been more than 20 per cent. higher than the retail prices index for the same two-year period.
Most of the tenants affected could never have expected increases of that magnitude under a fair rent system. As my hon. Friend said, many regulated tenants are elderly and on fixed incomes. They have planned their affairs on the assumption that they would be able to remain in their present home and I know that these increases are causing some of them not only great hardship, but great anxiety as they face the alternatives of giving up their home of many years, or seeing their savings rapidly disappear.
I do not believe that landlords of regulated tenants expected such increases. Regulated tenancies have generally been acquired in anticipation of substantial capital gains when the tenancies come to an end. These tenancies have always traded at a discount to vacant possession value. The discount may have reduced in recent years, but even now those properties trade at some 30 to 45 per cent. below vacant possession value. Moreover, the landlords bought those properties in the knowledge that the rents were subject to fair rent controls and that potential rental yields would be lower than those obtainable from assured shorthold tenancies. Therefore, we feel that there is a strong case for considering Government intervention to moderate rent increases for the small group of existing tenants in that position.
What options are we considering? First, I must make it clear that we do not have it in mind to change either the existing system of fair rent determinations by rent officers and rent assessment committees, or the rent criteria in section 70 of the Rent Act 1977. That would require primary legislation and, in view of the many other pressures on parliamentary time, any opportunity for that would be likely to lie some way ahead.
A more attractive option, which may be possible through secondary legislation, is the application of a maximum limit to the size of the rent increase which could be imposed by rent officers and rent assessment

committees under the existing system. We have in mind linking rent increases to the retail prices index, as a well-established measure of affordability, by way of an "RPI plus X" formula. However, there are some tricky issues to be resolved. We would need to ensure that we got the right balance between the interests of tenants and the interests of landlords. Another issue is that we do not want to discourage landlords from carrying out necessary improvements to their property; but, equally, we must be sure that any mechanism that allows rent increases to reflect those improvements does not simply provide the landlord with a loophole for circumventing the new limit.
There are difficult and detailed technical and legal issues which still need further study, but assuming that we can overcome these to our satisfaction, we shall issue a public consultation document setting out our proposals and seeking comments on the details. I cannot say precisely when that might be, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are moving as rapidly as we can.
The principles and procedures for registering rents which apply to regulated tenancies under the Rent Act 1977 apply equally to tenants of registered social landlords whose tenancies started before January 1989. Rent officers register the maximum rent that may be charged. The rent officer cannot take into account the fact that RSLs are expected to charge rents affordable to people on low incomes, or that rents are expected to be below equivalent local private market levels. In recent years, in line with trends affecting other secure tenants, rent officers have recommended steep increases in RSL fair rents. Although, RSLs are not obliged to charge the full fair rent if they consider it too high, many do so.
The Housing Corporation has become increasingly concerned about rent levels within the sector generally and is taking steps to bear down on all RSL rents. Since April 1997, RSLs receiving capital grants for new development have been required to limit the increase in rents and service charges to RPI plus 1 per cent.
The corporation has recently consulted on further measures to limit increases for existing secure and assured tenants. Under the new performance standards for RSLs, to be introduced on 1 April 1998, RSLs will be expected to limit their overall rent increases to RPI plus 1 per cent. That figure will, however, apply to the total rent envelope of an association's stock rather than to individual rents. It will not prevent an individual tenant's rent from rising by significantly more than that figure.
The corporation has also been encouraging RSLs to develop rent policies aimed at setting rents that reflect the size, nature and location of the property rather than the nature of the tenancy or the funding regime under which it was developed. That would suggest a gradual process of convergence between secure and assured rents. However, it could seem rather inequitable to allow individual fair rents in the social rented sector to rise unchecked, if those in the private sector were subject to a cap.
We are therefore considering whether any proposal to limit fair rent increases for regulated tenants might also apply to secure tenants of RSLs, but within the rent control framework being developed by the Housing Corporation for all existing stock. RSLs would still be expected to develop rent policies that worked towards rent convergence, although that convergence might be slower if fair rent increases were limited. Clearly, we are trying


to balance a number of issues here and we would not take any decisions about the way ahead without consulting all the interested parties first.
Concerns have also been expressed that fair rent levels are not consistent between rent office areas or between rent officers and rent assessment committees. The Government share those concerns and we are looking at ways to improve performance. We have already announced that we have decided to create a unified national structure for the rent officer service in England by establishing it as a next steps agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That should ensure that a more consistent and accountable service is provided to the public. We are currently planning on the assumption that the agency will be established in October 1999.
We are also reviewing, in the light of the Nolan report and the code of practice for public appointments, the composition of rent assessment panels and the procedures for appointing members. In doing so, we are responding to the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend about possible imbalances in the membership of rent assessment panels.
I have been concerned that members of the panel should be drawn from a broader constituency. The panels are now making greater use of lay members on their committees and tribunals. The Department has already started advertising annually for panel members to widen the catchment from which they are drawn. More information is now required from candidates for appointment and declarations of interest are required from members on both appointment and re-appointment. I know that panel presidents are very aware of the need to ensure that members do not consider cases in which they may have either a personal or professional interest. However, we are looking to strengthen the safeguards still further. We want to see greater openness in the appointment process, with tenants and landlords having

ready access to information about the members considering their case. That is why I have asked the panels to look at how a register of members' interests can be made available for public inspection.
Another development that I can report is that a working group comprising members of the Institute of Rent Officers and rent assessment panels has been set up to consider, in the light of the recent fair rent court cases, how to achieve general consistency of approach to the registration of fair rents. I welcome that initiative and look forward to seeing the good practice guide that it proposes to issue in due course.
I know that the very fact that we are looking at the problem of unjustifiably high rent increases in the regulated sector has set alarm bells ringing in some quarters. Landlords' associations are suggesting that moderating fair rent increases could be the thin end of the wedge—the prelude to wider rent control. They are also predicting that it would scare away the financial institutions, which are at last beginning to show renewed interest in investing in private residential housing. I have to say, and keep on saying, that there is no rational basis for such fears. They are groundless. The factors that have led us to consider moderating fair rent increases simply do not apply in the deregulated sector of the market. We have no plans to change the legal framework for deregulated private tenancies, where rents and rent increases follow market trends.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North is reassured from what I have said that the Government share her concerns about the plight of fair rent tenants. We are developing proposals to impose a maximum limit on the size of fair rent increases and we hope to be in a position to issue a public consultation paper shortly, setting out our proposals and seeking comments on the details.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.